Shivaji Yashwant Karpe, Ahmednagar V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 1523/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1114 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 31-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL KUMAR CHAWARE
• Keywords: Peak credit; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS IQ.KS IQ.KSIQ.KS IQ.KS IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE , . . , # BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM . / ITA NO.1523/PN/2014 % % / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI SHIVAJI YASHWANT KARPE, PASAYDAN, RANGAR GALLI, SANGAMNER, DIST. AHMEDNAGAR 422 605 PAN : ABIPK4400B . / APPELLANT V/S ITO - WARD - 4 , AHMEDNAGAR . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ANIL KUMAR CHAWARE / ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 27-05-2014 OF THE CIT(A)-IT/TP, PUNE RELATING TO T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF TH E ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL IS BEING DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND AFTER HEARING THE LD. DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. / DATE OF HEARING :11.08.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:12.08.2016 2 ITA NO.1523/PN/2014 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND A DOCTOR BY PROFESSION. HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29-12-2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,20,000/-. IN T HIS CASE, AIR INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED ACCORDING TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH TOTALING RS.23,54,925/- IN HIS BANK ACCO UNT MAINTAINED WITH DENA BANK WHICH WAS NOT REFLECTED IN HIS RE TURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. 4. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CASH DEPO SITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED B Y HIS HUF CONSISTING OF HIMSELF AND HIS WIFE AND HIS 2 SONS. IT WAS S UBMITTED THAT THE HUF HAS 11 ACRES OF LAND ON WHICH ONION AND TOM ATOES ARE GROWN. FURTHER, OUT OF THE TOTAL CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, RS.8.5 LAKHS WERE DEPOSITED BY HIS BROTHER AND S ISTER IN LAW. 5. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ABOVE EXPLAN ATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. HE CONDUCTED ENQUIRIES WITH THE TALATHI AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEES INDIVIDUAL SHARE IN THE AGRICULTU RAL LAND WAS LESS THAN 4 ACRES AND NOT 11 ACRES AS STATED BY HIM. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEES HUF WAS FORMED ON 24-01-2000 UPTO 23- 03-2009 AND THE ASSESSEE IS JOINT OWNER OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. HE FURTHER FOUND THAT THE HUF HAS TAKEN CROP OF MILLET ON THE SAME AGRICULTURAL LAND AND NOT ONION AND TOMATOES AS STATED B Y THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE BANK ACCOUNT IN WHICH CASH WAS DEPOSITED WAS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND WAS NOT IN THE NAME OF THE HUF. THEREFORE, THE AO CONCLUDED THAT THE 3 ITA NO.1523/PN/2014 ASSESSEES EXPLANATION ON THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS WAS WRONG. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE SATED BEFORE THE AO VIDE LET TER DATED 08-10-2008 THAT THE CLAIM OF THE DEPOSITS MADE BY HIS SIS TER IN LAW IS WITHDRAWN. HOWEVER, DEPOSITS MADE BY HIS BROTHER MAY BE CONSIDERED. AFTER CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS ARGUMENTS ADVA NCED BY THE ASSESSEE THE AO ALLOWED DEDUCTION OF RS.3,72,285/- FROM THE TOTAL CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.23,54,925/- ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMAT ED AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM 4 ACRES OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND BE LONGING TO THE ASSESSEE AND INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF DIVIDEND AND IN TEREST INCOME, INCOME RECEIVED FROM LIC AND HIS PROFESSIONAL INCOME . THE AO ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION OF RS.19,82,640/- TO THE TO TAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ARE SOURCED OUT OF THE INCOME DERIVED OUT OF TH E AGRICULTURAL LAND JOINTLY HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMIL Y MEMBERS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS WELL AS FOR THE EARLIER YEARS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS YEAR, THE ASS ESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS OWNED TOTAL LAND OF AROUND 11 ACRES, W HICH HAS ALSO BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE TALATHI. THE SAID LAND WAS INHE RITED ON THE DEATH OF HIS FATHER ON 03.01.2000. SUBSEQUENTLY, SPEC IFIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE LAND IN THE NAME OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS WAS MADE ON 23.01.2009 ON THE BASIS OF THE APPLICATION MADE B Y THE MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE. TILL THEN, THE SAID LAND ADMEASURING 11 ACRES WAS JOINTLY HELD BY THE VARIOUS FAMILY MEMBERS OF T HE ASSESSEE. THE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT IN THE FORM O F 'PHERPHAR PATRAK' WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4 ITA NO.1523/PN/2014 7. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS STATED IN T HE ORDER THAT THE LAND HELD BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACIT Y WAS AROUND 4 ACRES AND ACCORDINGLY, HE HAS ESTIMATED TOTAL AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM THE SAID LAND AT RS. 1,20,000 AT THE RATE OF R S 30,000 PER ACRE. AS PER THE FACTS STATED ABOVE, TOTAL AGRICULTUR AL LAND JOINTLY HELD BY THE VARIOUS FAMILY MEMBERS WAS AROUND 11 .5 ACRES AND HENCE, THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DERIVED FROM THE SAID LAN D AND DEPOSITED IN THE . ASSESSEE'S BANK ACCOUNT WAS MUCH H IGHER THAN THE INCOME ESTIMATED BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE CERTIFICATES OBTAINED FROM THE TALATHI, AHMEDNAGAR, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN CERTIFIED THAT THE TOTAL AGRICULTURAL INCOME DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS FROM THE JOINT LAND HOLDIN G OF 11.5 ACRES FOR FY 2007-08 WAS RS 4,50,000. ACCORDINGLY, TH E ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT BE CONSIDERED AT RS. 4,50,000 AS AGAINST THE AMO UNT OF RS 1,20,000 ESTIMATED BY THE AO. 8. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS YEAR, THERE WERE BOTH CASH DEPOSITS AND CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM THE DENA BANK A CCOUNT HELD BY THE ASSESSEE. THE TOTAL CASH DEPOSITS IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT WERE OF RS 22,34,508, WHEREAS THE TOTAL CASH WITH DRAWALS DURING THE YEAR WERE OF RS 3,51,700. IT WAS SUBMITTED THA T WHILE COMPUTING THE ADDITION, THE AO HAS ONLY CONSIDERED TOTAL DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK BUT HE HAS COMPLETELY IGNORED THE CAS H WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR, WHICH WER E AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING SUBSEQUENT CASH DE POSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THAT LOGICA LLY, THE ADDITION SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO THE AMOUNT OF PEAK OR N ET CASH DEPOSITS MADE DURING THE YEAR. THE TOTAL PEAK DEPOSITS IN THE SAID 5 ITA NO.1523/PN/2014 BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WORKS OUT TO RS. 20,03,224 AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT IF AT ALL, ANY ADDITION IS T O BE MADE, THE TOTAL DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAY BE CON SIDERED AT RS.20,03,224 AS AGAINST THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS 23,54,925. 9. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) ALSO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : FINDINGS : 2.8 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND A RG UMENTS OF THE APPEL L ANT . BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER, IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO PER US E FOLLOWING FACTS: (A) THE BANK ACCOUNT IN THE DENA BANK WAS NOT DISCL OSED BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. THE ACCOUNT CAME IN TO LIGHT ONLY ON RECEIPT OF THE AIR INFORMATION . (B) ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT , SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS IS AGRICULTURAL INCOME DERIVED BY HIS HUF FROM 11.5 ACR ES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. AS AGAINST THIS, THE LEARNED AO HAS STATED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY PROOF FOR HAVING RECEIVED AGRICULTURAL , INCOME AND SECONDLY, THE CROP TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT COULD BE MILLET AND NOT ONION AND TOMATOE S AS STATED BY THE APPELLANT . THIRDLY, OUT OF TOTAL LAND HOLDING OF 11 . 5 ACRES , THE APPELLANT HOLDS 4.57 ACRES WITH OTHER SIX FAMILY M EMBERS ( PARA 11 OF THE ORDER) , WIFE HOLDS 2 ACRES AND APPELLANT HOLDS ABOUT 4 ACRES OF LAND.( PAGE 7 OF THE ORDER) . (C) THE APPELLANT FIRST STATED THAT RS 8.5 LAKHS WER E DEPOSITED BY HIS BROTHER AND SISTER-IN-LAW. SUBSEQUENTLY , VIDE LETTER DATED 08 . 10.2008 , HE HAS WITHDRAWN THE CLAIM OF THE DEPOSITS MADE BY SISTER-IN-LAW AND HAS REQUESTED TO AL L OW CREDIT FOR THE CASH DEPOSITED BY HIS BROTHE R . HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FILED ANY CONFIRMATION LETTER OF HIS BROTHER NOR HAS STATED THAT HOW MUCH AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED BY HIS BROTHER. (D) BEFORE ME, THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT BENEF IT OF PEAK CREDIT SHOULD BE GRANTED TO IT . HOWEVER, IT HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY COMPUTATION STATIN G THE AMOUNTS OF THE DEPOSIT PERTAINED TO AGRICUL T URAL INCOME, CASH DEPOSITED BY BROTHER AND PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS. 2.9 FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT ' S EXPLANATION IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT BECAUSE THE APPELLANT'S EXPLANATION HAS U NDERGONE CHANGE REGARDING THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS. AS FAR AS T HE LEGAL ASPECT INVOLVED IN THIS ISSUE IS CONCERNED, MY FINDINGS ARE AS U NDER : 6 ITA NO.1523/PN/2014 1. CERTAIN CASH DEPOSITS ARE FOUND IN THE APPELLANT'S BANK ACCOUNT. IT IS THE APPELLANT, WHO SEEKS NON-TAXABILITY OF THE CASH DEPOSITS ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT ESTABLISHED WITH SALE BILLS OF AGRICU LTURAL PRODUCE THAT DEPOSITS ARE INDEED OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. NON-TAXABILITY OF THE AMOUNT CANNOT BE GRANTED ON A PRESUMPTION THAT SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS DERIVED AGRI CULTURAL INCOME IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR, HE WOULD ALSO HAVE DERIV ED AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE PRESENT YEAR. TAXABILITY AND NON- TAXABILITY OF THE AMOUNT; BOTH, ARE TO BE DECIDED O N EVIDENCE. THE ONUS IS ON THE APPELLANT TO ESTABLISH NON TAXABILIT Y OF THE AMOUNTS CREDITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT, WHICH IS NOT DISC HARGED BY HIM. 2. ON FACTS, THE APPELLANT HAS WITHDRAWN HIS EXPLANAT ION THAT PART OF THE AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED BY HIS SISTER-IN-LAW. THIS IS COUPLED WITH THE FACT OF NOT FURNISHING OF BREAK-UP OF THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OUT OF AGRICULT URAL INCOME, FROM HIS BROTHER AND FROM PROFESSIONAL PRACTIC E AND ABSENCE OF LINKING THE SAME WITH EACH CASH DEPOSIT IN T HE BANK ITSELF SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT'S EXPLANATION IS WITHOUT BASIS. AS STATED, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY LOAN CONFI RMATION FROM HIS BROTHER. THEREFORE, NO CREDENCE CAN BE GIVE N TO THE APPELLANT'S EXPLANATION. THUS, THE APPELLANT HAS FAIL ED TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS EXPLANATION WITH PROOF OF HAVING RECE IVED AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM HIS BROTHER. 3. THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED THREE CERTIFICATES DATE D 14.02.2014 ISSUED BY TALATHI STATING THAT DURING FY 20 07-08, THE APPELLANT'S TOTAL AGRICULTURAL INCOME DERIVED FR OM THREE PARCELS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS RS 4,50,000/-. I FIND FROM THE DATE OF THE CERTIFICATES THAT IT IS ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CE FILED BEFORE ME, WHICH WAS NOT BEFORE THE LEARNED AO. HOWEVER, TH E APPELLANT HAS NOT PRAYED FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL E VIDENCE' NOR HAS EXPLAINED HOW IT COULD NOT BE OBTAINED DURIN G ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NOT FURNISHED BEFORE THE LEARN ED AO. THEREFORE, IN ABSENCE OF THE SPECIFIC PRAYER FOR THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, I DECLINE TO ADMIT THE SAME. 2.10 I DERIVE SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF THE HONO RABLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DINESH B PARIKH V CIT ( 2012) 347 ITR 420 (CAL), IN WHICH IT IS HELD THAT , 'THERE WAS NOT ANY SUBSTANCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TRIBUNAL COMMITTED SUBSTANTIAL ERROR OF LAW IN NOT CONSIDERING THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE BROKER. ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE COULD BE ADDUCED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ON COMPLIANCE OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE SAME AND FORMAL APPLICATION MUST BE FILED AND AT THE SAME TIME, SPECIFIC ORDER MUST BE RECORDED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ALLOWING SUCH PRAYER AND SPECIFYING THE POIN T ON WHICH SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SHOULD BE TAKEN. IF SU CH APPLICATION WAS ALLOWED, THE OTHER SIDE MUST BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE OF REBUTTAL. [PARA 1 1] 7 ITA NO.1523/PN/2014 IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DID NE ITHER ACCEPT THE AFFIDAVIT BY PASSING ANY ORDER NOT DID IT RELY UPON SUCH AFFIDAVIT ANNEXED TO THE WRITTEN NOTE OF ARGUME NT BUT ALLOWED THE APPEAL ON A DIFFERENT GROUND WHICH WAS N OT TENABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT EVEN PRAY BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL FOR ALLOWING THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE AFFIDAV IT OF THE BROKER AND EVEN BEFORE THE INSTANT COURT, NO APPLICA TION HAD BEEN FILED FOR ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH AFFIDAVIT AS ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCE. [PARA 12] THUS, THERE WAS NOT ANY SUBSTANCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT A 'DUTY WAS CAST UPON THE TRIBUNAL TO LOOK INTO SUCH AFFIDAVIT ANNEXED TO THE WRITTEN NOTE OF ARGUME NT FILED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). [PARA 13]' 2.11 I ALSO FIND THAT IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ACT ION OF THE CIT(A) OF NOT ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS UPHELD BY T HE HONORABLE COURT IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: I. RAM PRASAD SHARMA V CIT (1979) 119 ITR 867 (ALL) II. RISHI SAGAR V ITO (2014) 148 ITD 46 (CHANDIGARH - TRIB) 2.12 ON FACTS, I FIND THAT ACCORDING TO TALATHI CERT IFICATES, THREE PARCELS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND HAD INCOME OF RS 1,50,00 0/- EACH. I FIND THAT THESE CERTIFICATES DO NOT TALLY WITH THE SIZE OF THE LAND HOLDING FOUND BY THE LEARNED AO ON ENQUIRIES CARRIED OUT WIT H TALATHI AND REPRODUCED ABOVE IN PARA 2.8(B) OF THIS ORDER. ACCOR DING TO THE TALATHI'S CERTIFICATES, APPELLANT'S HUF HOLDS 3.83 ACRE S OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE REMAINING TWO CERTIFICATES PERTAINING TO A GRICULTURAL LAND ADMEASURING 4.03 ACRES AND 3.43 ACRES DO NOT HAVE THE APPELLANT'S NAME AS ONE OF THE OWNER. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO REASO N FOR DEPOSITING AGRICULTURAL INCOME ARISING OUT OF THESE TW O PARCELS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND INTO THE APPELLANT'S BANK ACCOUNT. THE APPELLANT'S AGRICULTURAL INCOME WOULD ARISE ONLY OUT OF THE AGRI CULTURAL LAND OF 3.83 ACRES FOR WHICH, THE LEARNED AO HAS ALREADY ESTIM ATED INCOME OF RS. 1,20,000/- AND HAS GRANTED CREDIT FOR THE SAME. HE NCE, ADDITIONAL ESTIMATE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, I REJECT THE APPELLANT'S CONTE NTION THAT HIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME BE ESTIMATED AT RS 4,50,000/-. 2.13 THE APPELLANT'S REQUEST FOR GRANTING PEAK CREDI T IS ALSO BIZARRE. THEORY OF PEAK CREDIT WORKS, IF THERE IS ROTATION OF THE SAME CASH. IF THE APPELLANT PROVES THAT ITS CASH WITHDRAWAL WAS USED T OWARDS UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE, WHICH RESULTED IN UNACCOUNTED SA LE CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OR IF THERE IS SIMILAR TRANSACTIO N INVOLVING ROTATION OF CASH. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT ESTABLISHED SUCH ROTATION OF CASH HERE NOR IS SUCH ROTATION POSSIBLE IN AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY OR IN MEDICAL PROFESSION. HENCE, THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE GI VEN THE BENEFIT OF PEAK CREDIT THEORY. 2.14 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I HOLD THAT THE APPELLAN T HAS NEITHER ESTABLISHED HIS EXPLANATION NOT HAS DISCHARGED HIS ONUS OF PROVING NON TAXABILITY OF THE AMOUNT CREDITED IN THE BANK A CCOUNT. THEREFORE, I CONFIRM THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED AO OF RS 19,82,640/-. 8 ITA NO.1523/PN/2014 3. WITH THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 10. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARE TAKEN WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER- ON FACTS AND IN LAW, 1] THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AD DITION U/S 68 OF RS.19,82,640/- IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE CORRECT FACTS OF THE CASE. 2] THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE SOURCES OF THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 19,82,640/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED A.O. WAS JUSTIFIED. 3] THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WERE SOURCED OUT OF AGRICULTURAL IN COME DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS AND HENCE, THE ADDITI ON MADE U/S 68 WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AT ALL. 3.1] THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ADMITTING TH E EVIDENCES FILED IN THE FORM OF CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY TALATHI IN SUPPORT O F THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD NOT EXPLAINED THE REASONS AS TO WHY THE SAID CERTIFICAT ES COULD NOT BE FURNISHED IN THE ASST. PROCEEDINGS AND HENCE, THESE CERT IFICATES COULD NOT ADMITTED IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS W ITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE ON THE PA RT OF THE ASSESSEE IN NOT SUBMITTING THE SAME IN THE ASST. PROCEEDING S AND ACCORDINGLY, THE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY TALATHI OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 4] WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE LE ARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THERE WERE CA SH DEPOSITS AS WELL AS CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT AND HENC E, IF AT ALL, ANY AMOUNT WAS TO BE TAXED, ONLY THE PEAK CREDIT OUG HT TO HAVE BEEN TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5] THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 11. WE HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. WE FIND IN THE INSTAN T CASE HUGE CASH DEPOSITS WERE MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINT AINED 9 ITA NO.1523/PN/2014 WITH DENA BANK WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. ON BEING QUESTIONED BY THE AO ,THE AS SESSEE HAD MERELY STATED THAT THE SAME IS OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME DERIVED BY HIS HUF FROM 11.5 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WHEREAS ACTUA LLY THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING 4.5 ACRES OF LAND AS FOUND BY THE AO . WE FURTHER FIND THE ASSESSEE HAD INITIALLY MADE A STATEMENT T HAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.8.5 LAKHS WERE DEPOSITED BY HIS BROTHER AND SISTER IN LAW WHEREAS SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN T HE CLAIM OF CASH DEPOSITS MADE BY HIS SISTER IN LAW IN HIS BANK ACCOUN T. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS PARTLY OUT OF AGRICULTUR AL INCOME AND PARTLY OUT OF THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED BY HIS BROTHER LACKS MERIT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS NOT PROVED WITH SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE THAT THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE B ANK ACCOUNT IS PARTLY OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND PARTY OU T OF MONEY DEPOSITED BY HIS BROTHER AND SINCE THE AO HAS ALREADY G RANTED PART RELIEF ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME ON LAND BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE AO. WE FIND THE LD.CIT(A) HAS A LSO RIGHTLY REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ALLOWING PEA K CREDIT ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW TH AT THERE IS ROTATION OF THE SAME CASH, I.E. AMOUNT WITHDRAWN FROM THE B ANK HAS BEEN RE-DEPOSITED. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO S HOW THAT THE TOTAL CASH WITHDRAWN AMOUNTING TO RS.3,51,700/- IS UTILIZED B Y THE ASSESSEE FOR REDEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. SINCE THE L D.CIT(A) HAS PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER CONSIDERING EACH AND EVERY ASP ECT, THEREFORE, IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BROUGHT TO OUR NOTIC E, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, T HE 10 ITA NO.1523/PN/2014 SAME IS UPHELD AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12-08-2016. SD/- SD/- ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ( R.K. PANDA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IQ.KS PUNE ; DATED : 12 TH AUGUST , 2016. LRH'K ' (*+ ,+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. % ( ) - THE CIT(A)-IT/TP, PUNE 4. % S / THE CIT-IT/TP, PUNE 5. ( ++, , , , IQ.KS / DR, ITAT, A PUNE; 6. 0 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , ( + //TRUE COPY// 23 + , / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ,, IQ.KS / ITAT, PUNE