ITO, Kurukshetra V. Sh. Raghbir Singh, Kurukshetra

ITA 1231/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6919 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 28-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 69; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1231/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. SH.RAGHBIR SINGH WARD-3, S/O SH.SEWA SINGH, KURUKSHETRA. VILLAGE AMIN, PO-AMIN, KURUKSHETRA. PAN: BAVPS4437J AND ITA NO.1381/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) SH.RAGHBIR SINGH VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, S/O SH.SEWA SINGH, WARD-3, VILLAGE AMIN, PO-AMIN, KURUKSHETRA. KURUKSHETRA. PAN: BAVPS4437J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ROHIT GOYAL, CA DEPARTMENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 24.07.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.09.2017 O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M . : THE ABOVE CROSS APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE, HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARN ED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KARNAL DATED 4.10.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2 2. AT THE OUTSET IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE ON THE DATE OF HE ARING. A LETTER COMMUNICATING THE REASON FOR NON-APPEARANC E OF ANY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE REVENUE ON THE SAID DATE WAS FILED BEFORE US. AS PER THE SAID COMMUNICATION, CELEBRATI ON OF INCOME TAX DAY WAS STATED TO BE THE REASON FOR NON APPEARANCE. SINCE THE SAID REASON DID NOT FIND FAVO UR WITH THE BENCH FOR ADJOURNING THE CASE, THE HEARING WAS PROCEEDED WITH. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEALS PERTAINS TO ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH FOUND DEPOSITED IN THE BANK WHICH REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. 4. THE FACTS LEADING TO THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE TH AT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.89,57,7 00/- IN HDFC BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. DESPITE VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PROVIDE ANY DETA ILS OR EXPLANATIONS REGARDING THESE CASH DEPOSITS. THE AS SESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SE DEPOSITS WERE ACTUALLY INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND MADE ADDITION OF THE SAME I .E. RS.89,57,700/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. BEFORE THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT HE WAS A PROPERTY DEALER AND AGRICUL TURISTS AND DEPOSITS COULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO WITHDRAWALS MAD E SINCE THE CASH WAS BEING ROTATED IN THE BANK. THE ASSESS EES REPLY WAS FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HI S 3 COMMENTS WHO REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS HO LDING THEM TO BE AN AFTER THOUGHT AND CONCOCTED STORY SIN CE AS PER THE AO THE HUGE QUANTUM OF DEPOSITS COULD NOT B E CORROBORATED WITH THE MEAGRE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE REITERATED HIS EARLIER CONTENTION. THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE A SSESSEE HELD THAT SINCE THERE WERE HUGE WITHDRAWALS IN CASH ALSO FROM THE BANK, THE ENTIRE DEPOSITS COULD NOT BE CON SIDERED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) RELYING UPON VARIOUS DECISIONS OF T HE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT IT WOULD BE FAIR TO CONSIDER THE TOTAL DEPOSITS IN THE BANK OF RS.89,97,110/- AS THE TURNO VER OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY ESTIMATED THE NET PROF IT EARNED THEREON, BY APPLYING RATE OF 15%, AT RS.13,4 9,566/-. FURTHER UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENTS IN THE BUSINESS WER E TAKEN AT 10% OF THE TOTAL TURNOVER WHICH AMOUNTED TO RS.8,99,700/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.89,97,110/- WAS THUS RESTRI CTED TO AN AMOUNT OF RS.22,49,266/- 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND TH E REVENUE HAVE COME UP APPEAL BEFORE US. WITH THE AS SESSEE CHALLENGING THE UPHOLDING OF ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.22,49,266/- RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.22,49,266/- OUT OF AN ADDITION OF RS. 89,57,700/ - MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITS IN HDFC BANK. 4 2. THAT LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEAL S) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.13,49,566/- BY ESTIMATING PROFIT @15% OF TOTAL DEPOSITS IN BANK. 3. THAT LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEAL S) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.8,99,700/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN BANK DEPOSIT BY ESTIMATING INVESTMENT @ 10% OF TOTAL DEPOSITS IN BANK. 4. THAT APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR TO SUBSTITUTE THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFOR E OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF CASE. 7. THE REVENUE, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.67,08, 434/- AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS BEFORE US: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KARNAL HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS.67,08,434/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.89,57,700/-, MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME U/S 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, IGNORING THE FACT T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOU NT IN ASSESSMENT STAGE. 2. FURTHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), KARNAL HAS ALSO ERRED IN LAW IN CONSIDERING TOTAL CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT AT RS.89,97,700/- AS TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE BUSINESS AND FURTHER ESTIMATING THE PROFIT @ 15% AND INVESTMENT IN BUSINESS @ 10% OF TOTAL CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD OR DISPOSED OFF. 8. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE RAISED TWO FOLD ARGUMENTS; 5 I) THAT THE ENTIRE DEPOSITS COULD NOT BE TREATED AS THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOWANCE FOR DEPOSITS MADE OUT OF THE FOLLOWING WAS TO BE GIVEN; A) OPENING BALANCE OF CASH IN HAND = RS.4,40,000/- ; B) SALE OF BADA LAND = RS.4,50,000/-; C) CASH FROM KCC = RS.2,50,000/-; D) DEPOSITS FROM BUSINESS INCOME AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE RETURNED AND LASTLY ON ACCOU NT OF CASH WITHDRAWALS; II) THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE ALSO STATED THAT E VEN IF THE ENTIRE DEPOSITS WERE TREATED AS BUSINESS TURNOV ER OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF NET PROFIT EARNED THEREON, NO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENTS IN THE BUSINESS COULD BE MADE SINCE THE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE FROM CASH BEING ROTATED. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALS O THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO BEFORE US. WE SHALL BE DEALI NG WITH THE FIRST CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSE E THAT CERTAIN DEPOSITS ARE TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO VARIOUS SO URCES OF CASH AS ENUMERATED IN THE EARLIER PART OF OUT ORDER . 10. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT T HE CASH DEPOSITS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4,40,000/- IS TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE OPENING CASH IN HAND AVAILABLE WI TH THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE HAS SUBSTAN TIATED THE SAME BY STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE NET WITHDRAWALS OF CASH OF RS.3,40,000/- IN THE MONTH O F MARCH OF THE PRECEDING YEAR WHICH CAN BE TREATED AS THE C ASH IN HAND AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AS AT THE BEGINNIN G OF THE 6 YEAR. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THA T THE CASH WITHDRAWALS OF RS.1,80,000/- AND RS.3 LACS MAD E ON 16.3.2010 AND 18.3.2010 AND THE DEPOSIT OF RS.1,40 ,000/- ON 29.3.2010, REFLECTED IN HE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE A SSESSEE PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NO.17 DEMONSTRATED THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH IN HAND AS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3,40,000/-. THEREAFTER THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE STATED THAT RS.1 LAC COULD BE ASSUMED AS BEING PRESENT WITH THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS ACCUMULATED PAST SAVINGS. 11. WE FIND MERIT IN THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS OF THE L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSE SSEE HAS DEMONSTRATED THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH IN HAND OF RS.3,40,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF WITHDRAWALS MADE IN THE MONTH OF MARCH. THE SAME, WE FIND, WAS CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS WHO HAS NOT CONTROVERTED THIS FACT IN HIS REMAND REPORT. THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) ALSO HAS NOT CONTROVERTED THE ABOVE STATED FACT. THEREFORE, TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3,40,000/- IT CAN BE SAFELY STATED THAT CASH IN HAND WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR AND CAN BE ATTRIBUTED AS THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK DURING THE YEAR. AS FAR THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE THAT THE CASH IN HAND FROM ACCUMULATED SAVINGS AMOUNTED TO RS.1 LAC, WE FIND THAT NO JUSTI FIABLE REASON HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ATTRIBUTI NG THIS FIGURE TO THE OPENING CASH IN HAND AVAILABLE FROM 7 ACCUMULATED SAVINGS. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E HAS GIVEN NO FIGURES OF THE EARNINGS AND EXPENSES OF TH E ASSESSEE IN THE PAST TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CONTENTION . AT THE SAME TIME, IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT SOME AMOUNT CAN BE SAID TO BE IN THE FORM OF CASH IN HAND AVAILABLE WI TH THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE A SSESSEE FOR THE IMPUGNED YEAR AMOUNTING AT RS.1,58,660/- PL US AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.98600/- AND CONSIDERING T HE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE PROPERTY DEALING BUSINE SS THE TURNOVER FROM WHICH HAS BEEN ESTIMATED AT RS.89,97, 110/- WE CONSIDER THE AMOUNT OF RS.50,000/- TO BE REASONA BLE AMOUNT OF CASH IN HAND AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE CREDIT OF THE SAME ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITE D IN THE BANK DURING THE YEAR. THEREFORE, TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3,90,000/- (RS.3,40,000 + RS.50,000) WE HOLD THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE OPENING CASH IN HAND AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. 12. THEREAFTER THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE HAS ATTRIBUTED THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK TO THE EX TENT OF RS.4,50,000/- TO THE SALE OF BADA. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE STATED THAT BEING AN AGRICULTURIST HE WAS OWNING THE BADA WHICH IS A PLACE WHERE AGRICULTURAL PRODUC E APART FROM ANIMALS CAN BE STORED AND THAT HE HAD SOLD THA T BADA FOR RS.4,50,000/- TO AN AGRICULTURIST SHRI RAJIV KU MAR S/O SHRI PARMESHWARI PARSAD, R/O VILLAGE AMIN DISTT. KURUKSHETRA ON 27.4.2010. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSE SSEE 8 STATED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ALSO DEPOSITED IN T HE BANK. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE TRANSA CTION HAD BEEN CROSS ENDORSED BY THE PURCHASER THROUGH AN AFFIDAVIT DULY CERTIFIED BY THE NOTARY. THE ORIGIN AL AFFIDAVIT, AND ID PROOF OF THE PURCHASER WERE PLACED IN THE PA PER BOOK AT PAGE NO. 15 -16 FILED BEFORE US. 13. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(APPEAL S) WE FIND THAT THIS FACT HAD BEEN CONFRONTED TO THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WHO IN HIS REMAND REPORT HAD STATED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD NOT DECLARED ANY PROFIT FROM THE SALE OF BADA IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND, THEREFORE, NO CREDENCE OUGHT TO BE GIVEN TO THIS CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD. FURTHER WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DULY SUBSTANTIATE THE SALE OF THE SAID BADA. EXCEPT FOR FURNISHING AN AFFIDAVIT IN THIS REGARD W HICH IS SELF-SERVING DOCUMENT NO OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FILED. WE, THEREFORE, REJECT THIS CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE AND HOLD THAT NO PART OF CASH DEPOSITS CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO SALE OF BADA. 14. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IT HAD WITHDRAWN RS.2,50,000/- FROM HIS KCC ACCOUNT AND DEPOSITED IN CASH THE SAID AMOUNT IN HIS BANK. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF KCC OF THE ASSESSEE PLACED AT PAPER BO OK PAGE NOS. 13 AND 14 REFLECTING THE WITHDRAWAL OF RS.2,50 ,000/- ON 16.8.2010. 9 15. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(APPEA LS) WE FIND THAT THIS FACT WAS THERE BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) WHO HAVE NOT CONTROVERTED T HE SAME. HAVING DEMONSTRATED THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH BY WAY OF WITHDRAWALS FROM HIS KCC ACCOUNT, WE HOLD THE CA SH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK TO THE EXTENT OF THE SAID AMO UNT SHOULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM T HE KCC ACCOUNT. 16. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE ALSO STATED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOM E OF RS.1,58,660/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.98,600/ -. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE CASH DEPOS ITED IN THE BANK SHOULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO THIS INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ALSO. 17. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD.CIT(APPEALS), WE FIND THAT NO OB SERVATION IN THIS REGARD HAS BEEN MADE BY EITHER OF THEM. SI NCE IT IS NOT DENIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED INCOME OF APPROXIMATELY RS.2.5 LACS FROM THE AFORESAID SOURCE HAVING RETURNED THE SAME IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME, SOME AMO UNT OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK SHOULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE SAME ALSO AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE EXPENSES I NCURRED IN THE NORMAL COURSE BY THE ASSESSEE. WE CONSIDER AN AMOUNT OF RS.50,000/- TO BE REASONABLE ENOUGH TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE SAID SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE, THE BALANCE BEING ATTRIBUTED TO HAVE BEEN SPENT FOR HIS DAILY NEEDS. 10 18. IN EFFECT WE HOLD THAT OUT OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.89,57,700/- OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK, THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS OF THE FOLLOWING AMOUNT STANDS EXPLAINE D AS FOLLOWS: RS.3,40,000/- OPENING CASH IN HAND RS.2,50,000/- WITHDRAWAL FROM KCC RS.50,000/- OWN RETURNED INCOME 19. THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.83,17,700/- (RS.89,157,700-RS.6,40,000) WE HOLD IS TO BE ATTRIB UTED TO THE PROPERTY DEALING BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY. TH E REASON BEING THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS ADMITTED THAT H E WAS IN THE PROPERTY DEALING BUSINESS AND THE FREQUENCY OF CASH DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS DO REFLECT AND HINT TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON SOME SORT OF BUSINESS. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) THAT CONSIDERING THE LARGE NUMBER OF CREDITS AND CASH WITHDRAWALS AS WELL AS C HEQUE PAYMENTS MADE THROUGH THIS ACCOUNT IT IS NOT FAIR T O ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER ALL THE DEPOSITS AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. TH EREFORE, WE HOLD THAT THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.83,17,700/- DEPO SITED IN THE BANK AS BEING RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE AS SESSEE FROM PROPERTY DEALING AND ESTIMATING THE PROFITS THEREON @ 15% WE HOLD THAT THE NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE S AID BUSINESS BE ESTIMATED AT AN AMOUNT OF RS.12,47,655/-. 20. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO CONTE STED THE ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT @ 15% OF THE TURNOVER. IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENT, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE HAS TAKEN SHELTER OF SECTION 44AF OF THE ACT AND ST ATED THAT 11 THE RATE PRESCRIBED THEREIN OF 8% WAS TO BE APPLIED FOR ESTIMATING THE SAME. 21. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THIS CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. SECTION 44AF OF THE ACT PRESCRIB ES NET PROFIT RATE IN THE CASE OF RETAIL TRADE WHICH IS TO TALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE PROPERTY DEALING BUSINESS. THER EFORE, THE RATE OF 8% CANNOT BE SAID TO BE SUITABLE FOR THE PU RPOSE OF DETERMINING THE PROFITS FROM THE PROPERTY DEALING B USINESS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND, HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY ANOMALY IN THE RATE APPLIED BY THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, NOR HAS POINTED OUT ANY OTHER REASONA BLE RATE BY BRINGING OUT COMPARATIVE INSTANCES IN THE PROPER TY DEALING. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT IN THE ABSENCE O F ANY SUCH INFORMATION WE UPHOLD THE ESTIMATION OF NET PR OFIT RATE @ 15% OF THE TURNOVER BY THE LD.CIT (APPEALS). 22. LASTLY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS AGI TATED AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE BY ESTIMATING THE UNDISCL OSED INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY DEALING BUSINESS @ 10% O F THE TOTAL TURNOVER. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE P OINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS THE UNEX PLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK. SINCE THE SAME HAVE BEE N ACCEPTED TO BE ON ACCOUNT OF PROPERTY DEALING BUSIN ESS OF THE ASSESSEE THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BAN K STANDS EXPLAINED AND, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO REASON TO MAK E ANY OTHER ADDITION TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ALTE RNATIVELY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE IN VESTMENT IN THE SAID BUSINESS IS TO BE PRESUMED TO BE OUT OF CASH 12 WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 23. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE CASH DEPOSITED IN TH E BANK HAVING BEEN EXPLAINED AS BEING MADE OUT OF VARIOUS SOURCES AS HELD ABOVE IN THE EARLIER PART OF OUR ORDER AND OUT OF THE RECEIPT FROM THE PROPERTY DEALING BUSINESS, THE CAS H DEPOSITED IN THE BANK STANDS COMPLETELY EXPLAINED. THERE IS NO REASON, THEREFORE, TO MAKE ANY OTHER ADDITION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT THE NET PROFIT ON THE T URNOVER ESTIMATED. IN ANY CASE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTE NTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INVESTMEN T MADE IN THE PROPERTY DEALING BUSINESS CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE WITHDRAWALS MADE IN CASH OR BY CHEQUE AS REFLECTED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE DELETE THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.8,99,700/- BY ESTIMA TING THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE BUSINESS @ 10% OF THE TURNOVER. 24. IN EFFECT WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) TO THE EXTENT THAT THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE SAME IS ATTRI BUTABLE TO THE BUSINESS OF PROPERTY DEALING OF THE ASSESSEE AN D THEREFORE DISMISS THE REVENUES APPEAL CHALLENGING T HIS ACTION OF THE CIT(A). BUT AT THE SAME TIME WE RESTR ICT THE QUANTUM OF DEPOSITS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE BUSINESS TO RS. 83,17,700/- AS AGAINST RS.89,57,700/- HELD BY THE C IT(A) AND AS A CONSEQUENCE THEREOF RESTRICT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF NET PROFIT EARNED THEREON TO RS.12,47,6 55/- AS AGAINST RS.13,49,566/- HELD BY THE CIT(A). FURTHER WE 13 DIRECT THAT THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCL OSED INVESTMENT IN THE BUSINESS OF RS.8,99,700/- BE DELE TED. 25. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 8H SEPTEMBER, 2017 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH