Madireddy Yagnavalthya Maharshi, Hyderabad V. ACIT, Cir-16(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1424/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 66368 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: P JITENDRA KUMAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Additional evidence
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1424/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 MADIREDDY YAGNAVALKHYA MAHARSHI JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. .... APPELLANT PAN:AFKPM 8525 R VS. ACIT, CIR-16(2), HYDERABAD. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI P. JITENDRA KUMAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V. SRINIVAS DATE OF HEARING : 01-08-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 -10-2012 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27-5-2011 PASSED IN ITA NO.0205/DC-16(2)/CIT (A)-V/2009-10AND IT PERTAINS T O THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING SIX GROUNDS BE FORE US: 1. THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE CONTRARY TO LAW UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE. 2 ITA NO.1424 OF 2011 MADIREDDY YAGNAVALKHYA MAHARSHI, HYD.. 2. LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN TREATING THE CASH DEPOSITS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT, EVEN TOUGH SOURCES WERE EXPLAINED WITH SUPPORTING INFORMATION. 3. LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN REJECTING THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF CASH DEPOSITS MADE THAT WERE EXPLAINED WITH DAY TO DAY SOURCES FOR CAS H BALANCES TO MAKE DEPOSIT INTO THE BANK. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO FOREGOING GROUNDS, THE ADDITIONS MADE FOR UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT ARRIVED ON BASIS OF CASH DEPOSITS INTO BANK IS EXCESSIVE. 5. THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234 IS WRONG AND EXCESSIVE. 6. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. GROUND NOS. 1 AND 6 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND THEY DO NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 4. GROUND NOS. 2, 3 AND 4 RELATE TO ONE ISSUE I.E., ADDITION OF RS.1,11,74,360/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 5. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS ARE THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVI DUAL. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPUTE, ASSESSEE HAS FIL ED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.2,98,790 DER IVED FROM SALARY AND INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. INITIALLY, THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1). SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESS EES RETURN WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY BY THE AO BY ISSUI NG NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND 143(1) OF THE ACT. THE AO RECEIVED 3 ITA NO.1424 OF 2011 MADIREDDY YAGNAVALKHYA MAHARSHI, HYD.. INFORMATION INDICATING CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.1,11,74,3 60/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED IN M/S. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED. THE AO IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FU RNISH INFORMATION REGARDING (I) STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME AND RELEVANT NOTES TO THE ADJUSTMENT (II) COPY OF ASSES SEES ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF COMPANIES, IN WHICH ASSESSE E IS A DIRECTOR/MANAGING DIRECTOR, (III) COMPLETE DETAILS F BANK ACCOUNTS AND ITS TRANSACTIONS INTO RECEIPTS AND PAY MENTS AND (IV) STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 20 06-07. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY INFORMATION AS CAL LED FOR BY THE AO, THE A O PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMEN T BY TREATING THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.1,11,74,360 AS UNEX PLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND ADDED IT TO THE T OTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT OR DER. 6. IN COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE CIT (A), THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT FROM MR. SRI P. MADHUSUDAN R EDDY ALONG WITH RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNT AND STATE MENT OF AFFAIRS AS ON 31-3-2007 AND REQUESTED THE CIT (A) TO ADMIT THEM AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.74 LAKH WAS ADVANCED BY SRI MADHUSUDAN REDDY FROM TIME TO TIME IN CASH WHICH WA S DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH KOTAK MAHI NDRA BANK LIMITED. SO FAR AS THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.3 7 LAKHS IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IT WAS ONLY CIRCULATION OF MONEY FROM WITHDRAWALS MADE EARLIER. THE CIT 4 ITA NO.1424 OF 2011 MADIREDDY YAGNAVALKHYA MAHARSHI, HYD.. (A) CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO ON THE ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS SUMMONED SRI MADHUSUDAN REDDY AND ALSO CALLED FOR PRODUCTION OF THE BREAKUP OF ADVANCES AS WELL AS BANK ACCOUNT TO EXAMINE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF SRI P. MADHUSUDAN REDDY. THE SAID P. MADHUSUDAN REDDY APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND ADMITTED OF HAVING PAID CASH OF RS.74 LAKHS DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 TO TH E ASSESSEE. SHRI P. MADHUSUDAN REDDY ALSO SUBMITTED COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY HIM WITH DEVELOPMEN T CREDIT BANK AND KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK EACH AS WELL A S RECEIPTS AND PAYMENT ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31- 3-2007. THE AO ON VERIFICATION OF STATEMENT OF BANK ACCOU NTS FOUND THAT ON THE DATES SRI MADHUSUDHAN REDDY STATED TO H AVE MADE ADVANCE IN CASH TO THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS DEFI CIT BALANCE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THE AO FOR FURTHER VE RIFYING THE MATTER, ADDRESSED A LETTER TO THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, HYDERABAD WHEREIN P. MADHUSUDAN REDDY WAS ASSESSED TO TAX SOLICITING INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO THE ADVAN CES MADE BY P. MADHUSUDAN REDDY AS ON 31-3-2007. THE DY. C IT INFORMED THE AO THAT NO BREAK-UP ADVANCES HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BY SRI P. MADHUSUDAN REDDY. ON THE BASI S OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT RECOMMENDE D FOR SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,11,74,360/- SINCE T HE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CASH CREDITS WI TH ANY CONCRETE EVIDENCE. WHEN THE CIT (A) CONFRONTED WIT H THE REMAND REPORT TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT SRI P. MADHUSUDAN REDDY WAS SUBJECTED TO BLOCK ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS COVERING THE PERIOD OF THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 5 ITA NO.1424 OF 2011 MADIREDDY YAGNAVALKHYA MAHARSHI, HYD.. 2007-08 BASED ON RECEIPTS AND PAYMENT ACCOUNTS MAD E ON THE BASIS OF MATERIALS TRACED IN THE SEARCH. 7. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SRI P. MADHUSUDAN REDDY HAS DECLARED ON RS.2.81 CRORES BASED ON RECEIPTS AN D PAYMENTS ACCOUNT IN THE BLOCK PERIOD. THAT BESIDES THE RECEI PTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNT OF SRI P. MADHUSUDAN REDDY SHOWS T OTAL ADVANCES OF RS.14,12,76,715/- WHICH PRESUMABLY WOUL D ALSO INCLUDE THE ADVANCE OF RS.75 LAKHS TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT WHEN THE IDENTITY OF THE LENDER HAS BEEN PROVED AND THE LENDER HAS ALSO ADMITTED OF HAV ING ADVANCED THE AMOUNT AND IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE LENDER WA S HAVING SUFFICIENT SOURCE, THEN NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE U/S 68 OF TH E ACT. SO FAR AS THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.37 LAKHS IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DATE-WISE STATUS OF CASH BALANCE , SOURCE OF DEPOSIT AND AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT OF RS.1,11,74,360/- W ERE CLEARLY EXPLAINED. THE CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONTE NTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND EXAMINING THE MATERIALS BEFORE HIM FOU ND THAT IN THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNT OF SRI P. MADHUSUDAN REDDY FOR THE YEAR ENDING ON 31-3-2006 AND 31-3-2007 NEITHER THE ASSESSEES NAME APPEARED NOR THE SPECIFIC AMOUNT CLAIMED TO HA VE BEEN LENT TO THE ASSESSEE FINDS PLACE THEREIN. THE CIT (A) F URTHER TAKING NOTE OF THE FACT THAT EVEN THOUGH SRI P. MADHUSUDAN REDD Y WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO PRODUCE THE BREAK-UP OF ADVAN CES AS WELL AS THE BANK ACCOUNTS IN SUPPORT AND AS PROOF OF THE A MOUNT SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN LENT TO THE APPELLANT, THE SAID CREDIT OR SRI P. MADHUSUDAN REDDY DID NOT PRODUCE THE SAME. IN THE ABSENCE OF 6 ITA NO.1424 OF 2011 MADIREDDY YAGNAVALKHYA MAHARSHI, HYD.. ANY CREDIBLE EXPLANATION EITHER FROM THE ASSESSEE O R FROM SRI P. MADHUSUDAN REDDY, THE CIT (A) TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 74 LAKHS STATED TO HAVE BEEN ADVANCED BY P. MADHUSUDAN REDDY AS UNEXPLAINED. WITH REGARD TO THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.37,74,360/-, SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW ANY RE- DEPOSIT AND CIRCULATION OF THE MONEY, THE CIT (A) S USTAINED THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS.1,11,74,360/-. 8. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT SRI P. MADHUSUDAN REDDY IS A REAL ESTATE DEALER. THE ASSESSEE USED T O HELP SRI P. MADHUSUDAN REDDY IN PROCURING PROPERTIES. THE LEA RNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ADVANCES WERE GIVEN BY P. MADHUS UDAN REDDY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR FACILITATING THE ASSESSEE IN CA RRYING OUT SELECTION AND NEGOTIATION WITH SELECTED PROPERTY. THE AMOUNT GIVEN BY SRI REDDY TO THE ASSESSEE IS MERE ADVANCE AND CANNOT BE TREATED AS LOAN OR DEPOSIT. THE AMOUNT ADVANCED I S FOR ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY AND IS NOT REFUNDABLE. REFERRING TO TH E RECEIPTS AND PAYMENT ACCOUNT OF SRI P. MADHUSUDAN REDDY, AS ON 3 1-3-2007, THE LEARNED AR CONTENDED THAT SHRI P. MADHUSUDAN RE DDY WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT SOURCE FOR ADVANCING THE AMOUNT T O THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN HIS RECEIPTS AND PAYMENT ACCOUNT. CONSIDERING THE AMOUNT OF RS.14,12,76,715 /- ADVANCED BY SRI P. MADHUSUDAN REDDY, IT IS NOT IMPROBABLE T O MAKE CASH ADVANCE OF RS.74 LAKHS TO THE ASSESSEE. 9. THE LEARNED AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE BALANC E AMOUNT OF RS.37 LAKHS ALSO CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE 7 ITA NO.1424 OF 2011 MADIREDDY YAGNAVALKHYA MAHARSHI, HYD.. ASSESSEE SINCE THE ASSESSEE IN THE MONTHS OF JANUAR Y AND FEBRUARY HAD WITHDRAWN IN CASH AN AMOUNT OF RS.34 L AKHS AND AGAIN DEPOSITED THE SAME IN THE MONTH OF MARCH. TH E LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR AND THE CREDITOR HAS ALSO SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT ADMITTING THE FACT OF ADVANCING RS.74 LAK HS TO THE ASSESSEE, THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISBELIEVED AND NO ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE AMOUNT SH OULD HAVE BEEN MADE. IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION, THE LEARNED AR RELIED UPON A DECISION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F KAILASH TRIPLE STERILIZED WATER (CHENNAI) PVT. LTD. (2008) 215 CT R 198 AND IN THE CASE OF NEMI CHAND KOTHARI 136 TAXMAN 223. 10. THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTING THE ORDERS OF THE REV ENUE AUTHORITIES SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE THOUGH HAS ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR, BUT HAS FAILED TO PROVE T HE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND ALSO THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF TH E CREDITOR. THE LEARNED DR RELYING UPON A DECISION OF THE HONBLE A P HIGH COURT IN R.B. MITTAL VS. CIT (246 ITR 283) SUBMITTED THAT WH EN THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR HAS NOT BEEN PROVE D, THE CASH CREDIT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. 11. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. OUT OF RS.1,11,74,360 ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESS EE HAS EXPLAINED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.74 LAKHS WAS ADVANCED BY SRI P . 8 ITA NO.1424 OF 2011 MADIREDDY YAGNAVALKHYA MAHARSHI, HYD.. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY. IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CLAIM, THE A SSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT OF SRI P. MADHUSUDAN REDDY W HEREIN SRI P. MADHUSUDAN REDDY HAS ADMITTED OF HAVING ADVANCED AN AMOUNT OF RS.74 LAKHS TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, APART FROM T HE AFFIDAVIT, THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE ON RECORD EITHER BY THE ASSESSEE OR BY SRI P. MADHUSUDAN REDDY TO ESTABLISH THE FACT THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.74 LAKHS AS IN FACT HAS BEEN ADVANCED BY SRI P. MADHUSUDAN REDDY TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS A FACT ON RECORD THAT IN COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE CIT (A), NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE HA S BEEN SUBMITTED TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF SRI P. M ADHUSUDAN REDDY. IN SPITE OF SPECIFIC QUERY MADE BY THE AO A S WELL AS CIT (A) THE BREAKUP OF ADVANCES WERE NOT FURNISHED WHI CH COULD HAVE THROWN SOME LIGHT AS TO WHETHER THE ADVANCES MENTIO NED IN THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNT ALSO INCLUDED THE ADV ANCES OF RS.74 LAKHS PAID TO THE ASSESSEE, WHEN ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEES NAME DOES NOT FIND PLACE IN THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMEN TS ACCOUNT OF SRI P. MADHUSUDAN REDDY. THAT APART, THE AO AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF SRI P. MADHUSUDAN REDDY HAS FO UND DEFICIT IN THE CASH BALANCE ON THE DATE SRI MADHUSUDAN REDDY S TATED TO HAVE ADVANCED THE MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE. THESE FAC TS CERTAINLY RAISE A PRESUMPTION AGAINST THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF SRI P. MADHUSUDAN REDDY IN ADVANCING THE MONEY OF RS.74 LA KHS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT REBUTTED THE PRESUMPTION BY BRINGI NG SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF SR I P. MADHUSUDAN REDDY. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.74 LA KHS HAS BEEN 9 ITA NO.1424 OF 2011 MADIREDDY YAGNAVALKHYA MAHARSHI, HYD.. CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID IN CASH. THEREFORE, IN A BSENCE OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THE AFFIDAVIT OF SRI P. MADHUS UDAN REDDY BECOMES ONLY SELF-SERVING DOCUMENT. THE FACTS THAT SRI P. MADHUSUDAN REDDY HAS SHOWN AN ADVANCE OF RS.14 CROR ES IN THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNT AND HAS DISCLOSED AN INCOME OF 2.18 CRORES IN HIS BLOCK RETURN CANNOT BY ITSELF LE AD TO AN INFERENCE THAT MR. P. MADHUSUDAN REDDDY HAS ADVANCED THE AMOU NT OF RS.74 LAKHS TO THE ASSESSEE OR WITH REGARD TO HIS C REDITWORTHINESS. 12. THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DR IN THIS REGAR D IS FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE JUDGMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF RB MITTAL VS. CIT REPORTED IN 246 ITR 283. TH E ASSESSEE HAVING FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDI T AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF SRI P. MADHUSUDAN REDDY, THE AD DITION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.74 LAKHS HAS TO BE SUSTAINED. SO FAR A S THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.37,74,360/- IS CONCERNED, IT IS THE CO NTENTION OF THE LEARNED AR THAT THE DEPOSITS WERE MADE OUT OF THE A MOUNT OF RS.34 LAKHS WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT IN THE MONTHS OF JANUARY AND FEBRUARY. IN THIS REGARD , THE LEARNED AR RELIED UPON A STATEMENT WHICH IS AT PAGE-23 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HOWEVER, THE SAID STATEMENT DOES NOT REVEAL THE NAM E OF THE BANK OR BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER FROM WHICH THE SAID AMOUNT C LAIMED TO HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN. IT IS ALSO NOT CLEAR AS TO WHE THER THE AFORESAID STATEMENT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. NO CERTIFICATE TO THIS EFFECT HAS BEEN GIVEN EITHER BY THE ASSESSEE OR BY THE LEARNED AR IN THE PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT MADE ANY APPLICATION BEFORE US FOR ADMITTI NG THE SAME AS 10 ITA NO.1424 OF 2011 MADIREDDY YAGNAVALKHYA MAHARSHI, HYD.. ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. BE THAT AS IT MAY, IT IS A FAC T ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE EIT HER BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES OR BEFORE US TO PROVE THE FACT TH AT THE AMOUNT OF RS.34 LAKHS WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT IN THE MONTHS OF JANUARY AND FEBRUARY AND WAS AVAIL ABLE WITH HIM WHICH WERE AGAIN RE-DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT I N THE MONTH OF MARCH. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE LIKE BANK ACCOUNT COPY OR BANK STATEMENT TO SUBSTANTIATE IT S CLAIM. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL TO PROVE THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.34 LAKHS WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK A CCOUNT AND DEPOSITED AGAIN INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRO VE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CASH CREDIT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIE S. 13. IN THE RESULT, WE UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE CI T (A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 17 -10-2012. SD/- S D/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED THE 17 TH OCTOBER, 2012. COPY TO:- 11 ITA NO.1424 OF 2011 MADIREDDY YAGNAVALKHYA MAHARSHI, HYD.. 1) SRI M.Y MAHARHI, M.D OF M/S MYM TECHNOLOGIES LIMITE D, 118, MARUTHI COMPLEX, 5 TH FLOOR, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD. 2) ACIT, CIR-16(2), HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT (A-V, HYDERABAD 4) THE CIT CONCERNED, HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDERABA D. JMR* 12 ITA NO.1424 OF 2011 MADIREDDY YAGNAVALKHYA MAHARSHI, HYD..