ITO, Satara V. Shri Suryajirao Shankarrao Kadam, Satara

ITA 1563/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 156324514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 08-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Source of fund; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1563/PN/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) ITO, WARD-3, SATARA .. APPELLANT VS. SHRI SURYAJIRAO SHANKARRAO KADAM, A/P. GIRVI, TAL : PHALTAN, DIST : SATARA PAN NO. BLGPK1532H .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJESH DAMOR DATE OF HEARING : 20-08-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28-08-2014 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 29-05-2013 OF THE CIT(A) CENTRAL, PUNE RELATI NG TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE, NONE APPEARED ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THIS APPEAL IS BEING DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND AFTER HEARING THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS AN AGRICULTURIST. IN THIS CASE, AIR INFORMA TION WAS RECEIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT ACCORDING TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE DEPOSITS 2 AGGREGATING TO RS.38,90,000/- IN CASH IN HIS SAVING S BANK ACCOUNT DURING FY 2004-05. ON THE BASIS OF THIS INFORMATION , A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142 (1) WAS ISSUED BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSE E CALLING FOR A RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2005-06. AS THERE WAS NO RESPONSE, ANOTHER NOTICE WAS ISSUED CALLING FOR CERTAIN DETAILS. ALTHOUGH TH E NOTICES WERE DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE F ROM THE ASSESSEE'S SIDE, NOR WERE THE REQUISITE PARTICULARS FILED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE AO CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO EXPLANATION T O OFFER REGARDING THE SOURCES OF THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE SAVINGS BAN K ACCOUNTS AMOUNTING TO THE AFOREMENTIONED AMOUNT OF RS. 38,90,000/-. AC CORDINGLY, HE TREATED THE AMOUNT AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT AND BR OUGHT THE SAME TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMPUGNED A SSESSMENT YEAR AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 4. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS LETTER D ATED 12.03.10 SUBMITTED THAT HE IS AN AGRICULTURIST AND WAS, THER EFORE, NOT ASSESSED TO INCOME-TAX. UPON RECEIPT OF NOTICES FROM THE ITO (C IB), KOLHAPUR, THE ASSESSEE, NOT BEING WELL-VERSED WITH THE LEGAL IMPL ICATIONS, COULD NOT UNDERSTAND AND THEREFORE DID NOT RESPOND TO NOTICES . AS REGARDS THE ARGUMENT ON MERITS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUN TS DEPOSITED IN HIS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNTS WERE IN FACT RE-DEPOSITS MADE EITHER OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWN FROM THE SAME BANK OR FROM THE ASSESSEE'S ACCOUNT IN SATARA DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK, PHALTAN. IN SUPP ORT OF THIS CONTENTION, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A SUMMARY OF HIS SAVINGS BANK DEPOSITS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT HE HAD WITHDRAWN RS.37 LAKHS FROM THE CENTRAL BANK AND RS. 31.80 LAKHS FROM THE SATARA DI STRICT COOPERATIVE 3 BANK. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY CONTENDED THAT THE SOURCE S OF THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 38.90 LAKHS IN THE CENTRAL BANK WERE CASH WITHD RAWALS FROM THE SAME BANK AND PARTLY WITHDRAWALS FROM THE SATARA DI STRICT COOPERATIVE BANK. THE NET DEPOSIT IN CENTRAL BANK ACCOUNT (AFTE R GIVING CREDIT FOR WITHDRAWALS FROM THE SAME ACCOUNT) WAS ONLY RS.1.9 LAKHS, WHICH WAS OUT OF MONEY WITHDRAWN FROM THE SATARA DISTT. CO-OP BANK. CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSION, THE THEN CIT (A) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 24 NOVEMBER, 2009 REMANDED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO LOOK INTO THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTIONS AND SUBMIT HIS REPORT. AFTER CONFRONTING THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER CONS IDERING THE REJOINDER OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO, THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 5.5 I HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO ALL THE FACTS BEFORE ME AND THE VOLUMINOUS SUBMISSIONS ON RECORD IN THIS CASE. THE FI RST AND THE MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION IN THIS CASE REMAINS THE SOU RCES OF THE DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.38,90,0007- MADE BY THE APPEL LANT IN HIS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT WITH THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, PHALTAN, SATARA, DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR. FOR WANT OF ANY EXPLANAT ION AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE, THE LD. AO ADDED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. AS AN OFFSHOOT OF THE ENQUIRIES MADE BY THE LD AO DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, CERTAIN OTHER ISSUES, IN CLUDING INCOME FROM PENSION, ANNUAL VALUE OF THE SECOND HOUSE PROPERTY, INTEREST INCOME FROM BANKS AND ASSESSABILITY UNDER WEALTH TAX ACT HAVE ALSO ARISEN. ALL THESE ISSUES ARE DISCUSSED SERIATIM AND DISPOSED OF AS BELOW. (1) SOURCES OF DEPOSITS IN SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT AS MENTIONED IN PARA-5.2 (SUPRA), THE APPELLANT'S CONT ENTION IS THAT THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT EITHER REPR ESENTED WITHDRAWN FROM THE VERY SAME ACCOUNT AND SUBSEQUENTLY RE-DEPOSITED, OR MONEY WHICH WAS WITHDRAWN FROM HIS OT HER BANK ACCOUNT IN THE SATARA DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK) AND DEPO SITED IN THE AFORESAID CENTRAL BANK ACCOUNT. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CO NTENTIONS, THE APPELLANT FILED A CASH-FLOW STATEMENT BEFORE THE LD. AO DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS WHEREIN DEPOSITS/WITHDRAWALS INTO/FR OM BOTH THE AFOREMENTIONED ACCOUNTS WERE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERA TION AND A BRIEF EXPLANATION FOR THE SOURCES OF THE DEPOSITS WAS AL SO OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT. HAVING PERUSED THE SAME CAREFULLY, THE AO NOTED FIRSTLY, THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.7,50,000/- HAD BEEN SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT AS 4 'CASH IN HAND AS ON 1-4-2004'. THE APPELLANT'S EXPLANATION FOR THE AMOUNT WAS THAT THE SAME REPRESENTED ACCUMULATED AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME IN HIS HANDS. THE AO, HOWEVER, OBSERVED THAT TH E EXPLANATION WAS VAGUE AND WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY DOCUMENTARY PRO OF. SECONDLY, THE AO ALSO NOTED FROM THE CASH-FLOW STATEMENT THAT T HERE WAS A NEGATIVE CASH BALANCE DURING THE PERIOD FROM 09 .07.04 TO 27.08.04. FOR THIS TOO, THE EXPLANATION OF THE LD. A R OF THE APPELLANT WAS THAT THE NEGATIVE CASH BALANCE REPRESENTED AGRICUL TURAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK. THE AO, HOWEVER, WAS OF THE VI EW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN A SPECIFIC REPLY TO HIS Q UERY, NOR PRESENTED ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE/PROOF OF AGRICULTUR AL INCOME EARNED DURING THE YEAR. HE ALSO NOTED THAT SALE BILLS RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT FY HAD NOT BEE N FURNISHED. FOR WANT OF THESE DETAILS, HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE EXP LANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THIRDLY, THE AO NOTED THAT NO CONVINCING REASONS HAVE BEEN OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE HUGE CASH WITHDRAWALS. THE APPELLANT'S EXPLANATION IN THIS R EGARD BEFORE HIM VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 05.04.2010 WAS THAT THE MON IES WERE WITHDRAWN WITH THE INTENTION OF BUYING PROPERTY IN PUNE CITY AND ALSO MORE AGRICULTURAL LAND, BUT THE INVESTMENTS COULD NOT MATERIALIZE AND THEREFORE THE MONEY WITHDRAWN WAS DEPOSITED BACK FROM TIME TO TIME. THIS EXPLANATION TOO DID NOT CONVINCE THE LD. AO. HE NOTED THAT THE SAME WAS VAGUE AND NON-SPECIFIC AND NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OR PROOF. 5.6 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE FACTS CAREFULLY. IT I S THE CONSISTENT STAND OF THE APPELLANT IN THIS CASE THAT HE IS PRIMARIL Y AN AGRICULTURIST AND WAS DERIVING SUBSTANTIAL INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE A T THE RELEVANT TIME. IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS SUBMITTED WITH FORM N O.35 IT IS STATED BY THE APPELLANT THAT HE IS A 'RICH AGRICULTURIST'. T HIS HAS ALSO BEEN THE MAIN BASIS OF HIS EXPLANATIONS DURING THE APPELLATE AND REMAND PROCEEDINGS. BY WAY OF DOCUMENTARY PROOF, AS ALREADY MENTIONED, THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED A VOLUMINOUS SET OF DOCUMENTS IN CLUDING 7/12 EXTRACTS AND BILLS FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. B ASED ON THESE, IT IS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT THAT HE AND HIS IMMEDIATE F AMILY MEMBERS OWNED AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN EXCESS OF 100 ACRES, AND TH AT THE MAIN SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WA S THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED FROM THE SAID AGRICULTURA L LANDS. UPON PERUSAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS IT WAS SEEN THAT THE LANDS AND THE SALE BILLS WERE EITHER IN THE NAME OF 'SMT. SHARDADEVI SURYAJ IRAO KADAM' OR IN THE NAME OF 'SHRI CHIMANRAO KADAM'. UPON BEING ASKED ABOUT THE IDENTITY OF THE SAID SHRI CHIMANRAO K ADAM, IT IS EXPLAINED THAT THE APPELLANT I.E., SHRI SURYAJIRAO KADAM, IS ALSO KNOWN AS SHRI CHIMANRAO KADAM. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CLAIM, A C OPY OF AN IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO MEMBE RS OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY HAS BEEN FILED WHICH SHOWS THE NAME OF THE CARD HOLDER AS (SURYAJIRAO ALIAS CHIMANRAO SHANKARRAO KADAM). AS REGARDS SMT. SHARDADE VI SURYAJIRAO KADAM, SHE IS THE APPELLANT'S WIFE. DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING HELD ON 8.5.13, THE LD. AR OF THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FILED A STATEMENT OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS OWNED BY THE APPELLAN T, HIS WIFE AND TWO DAUGHTERS GIVING THE SY. NOS. AND AREAS OF THE AGR ICULTURAL LANDS OWNED BY THEM IN HECTARES. IT IS SEEN FROM THE SAID STA TEMENT THAT THE APPELLANT AND HIS IMMEDIATE FAMILY OWNED LANDS IN EXC ESS OF 51 HECTARES (126 ACRES). IN THIS REGARD, IT MAY BE 'NOTED , HOWEVER, THAT THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE PRESENT AP PELLANT, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY WAS THE BENEFICIARY OF THE AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME EARNED BY THE AFORESAID FAMILY-MEMBERS. MORE SPECIFICA LLY, IT IS NOT 5 KNOWN WHETHER HIS WIFE SMT. SHARDADEVI SURYAJIRAO KA DAM ALSO HAD ANY BANK ACCOUNTS IN WHICH SHE HAD MADE ANY SUBSTANTIAL DEPOSITS DURING THE YEAR OR THE EXTENT TO WHICH SHE HAD EITHE R INVESTED IN ASSETS OR INCURRED EXPENDITURE. AS REGARDS THE DAUGHTER S OF THE APPELLANT TOO, THE EXTENT OF THEIR PERSONAL EXPENDIT URE AND INVESTMENTS, THEIR MARITAL STATUS, AND IN CASE THEY WERE MARRIED, THE EXTENT OF THEIR INCOME WAS AVAILABLE TO THE APPELLAN T IS NOT CLEAR F ROM THE DOCUMENTS ON RECORD. WITHOUT THESE DETAILS, CREDIT FOR THE INCOME CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN EARNED BY THE OTHER FAMILY MEM BERS FROM THEIR AGRICULTURAL LANDS CANNOT AUTOMATICALLY BE ALLOWED I N THE APPELLANTS HANDS. IGNORING THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS OWNED BY OTHER FAMILY-MEMBERS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE EXTENT OF LANDS STAN DING IN THE APPELLANT'S OWN NAME AS PER DETAILS SUBMITTED BY HIM WE RE TO THE EXTENT OF 24.97 HECTARES (ABOUT 62 ACRES). FROM THE B ILLS FOR THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE SUBMITTED, IT IS SEEN THAT TOTAL SALES OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,43,098/- WERE MADE IN THE APPELLANT'S OWN NAME. IT IS FURTHER CLAIMED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.8,00,000/- FROM HIS WIFE ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE 'PURCHASED' BY HER FROM THE ASSESSE S AND SOLD IN HER OWN NAME AT VARIOUS AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETS AT MUMBAI, VASHI, ETC. AND TO SUGAR FACTORIES. A CONFIRMATION TO THIS EFFECT FROM SMT.SHARDADEVI S. KADAM WAS ALSO PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. AO. THE AO, HOWEVER, WAS NOT CONVINCED ABOUT HIS CLAIM IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROOF THAT THE APPELLANT HAD ACTUALLY PRODUCED AGRI CULTURAL PRODUCTS SUCH AS SUGARCANE, WHEAT, POMEGRANATE, PULSES ETC. AS REG ARDS THIS ISSUE, I AM IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH THE LD. AO'S CONCLU SION. THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT OF HAVING 'SOLD' AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE TO HIS WIFE, WHO, IN TURN, SOLD IT TO VARIOUS AGRICULTURAL MARKETS DOES NOT SOUND CONVINCING AND CLEARLY APPEARS TO BE AN AFTERTHOUGHT IN AN ATTE MPT TO EXPLAIN AWAY THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH IN THE APPELLANT'S HAN DS AS PER THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT. AS SUCH, THIS CONTENTION OF THE APPELLA NT IS HEREBY REJECTED. HAVING HELD SO, IT ALSO CANNOT BE DENIED TH AT THE APPELLANT HAD SUBSTANTIAL LAND HOLDINGS AND MUST HAVE SURELY EARNE D AN APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTI VITIES DURING THE YEAR AND ALSO IN THE EARLIER YEARS. SINCE THE APPELLA NT ALSO HAD OTHER SOURCES OF INCOME, INCLUDING PENSION AND INTEREST INCOM E AND OTHER MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY ALSO HAD SUBSTANTIAL AGRICULTURAL INCOME, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE A GRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED BY THE APPELLANT HAD BEEN SPENT OR INVESTED BY THE HIM IN ANY OTHER MANNER, THE SAME MUST NOTIONALLY BE HELD TO HAV E BEEN AVAILABLE TO THE APPELLANT FOR MAKING THE IMPUGNED DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS TOGETHER, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD BE MET IF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 4 LAK H OUT OF THE OPENING CASH BALANCE WHICH HAVE BEEN SHOWN AT RS. 7.5 LAKHS BY THE APPELLANT IS HELD TO BE OUT OF EXPLAINED SOURCES. THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.3.5 LAKHS IS, THEREFORE, HELD TO BE TAXAB LE IN THE APPELLANT'S HANDS FOR THE YEAR. 5.7 THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY THE LD. AO IS REGARDING T HE REASONS FOR HUGE CASH WITHDRAWALS HAVE NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY EXPLA INED BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT'S EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 05.04.2010 TO THE LD. AO WAS THAT THE MONIES WE RE WITHDRAWN WITH THE INTENTION OF BUYING PROPERTY IN PUNE CITY AND ALSO MORE AGRICULTURAL LAND BUT THE INVESTMENTS COULD NOT MATER IALIZE AND THEREFORE THE MONEY WITHDRAWN WAS DEPOSITED BACK FROM TIME TO TIME. HOWEVER, I FIND THAT NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER HA S BEEN ADDUCED IN THIS REGARD NOR ANY PROPERTY WAS ACTUALLY PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE PERIOD IN PURSUANCE OF HIS STATED INTENTION TO DO 6 SO. AS SUCH, I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE LD. AO THAT TH E EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT IS VAGUE AND NON-SPECIFIC. T HAT SAID, HOWEVER, IT IS A WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION THAT WHERE THE BANK A CCOUNT EXTRACTS REVEAL A SERIES OF WITHDRAWALS AND DEPOSITS, IN THE ABSEN CE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNTS WITHDRAWN HAD BEEN UTILIZED IN SOME OTHER MANNER, THE BENEFIT OF WITHDRAWALS HAS TO B E GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT FOR EXPLAINING THE SUBSEQUENT DEPOSITS AND ON LY THE DEPOSITS IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNTS DEEMED TO BE AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT ON ACCOUNT OF PREVIOUS WITHDRAWALS CAN BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED. REFERENCE MAY BE HAD IN THIS REGARD TO THE DECISION OF ITAT, BANGALORE IN DR.M. SOMASHEKHAR V. ACIT (2010) 5 ITR (TRIB) 129 (BANGALORE). THE LD.AR OF THE APPELLANT HAS CITE D THE DECISION IN RAVI BHASKAR BANGARV. ITO ITA NO.4580/MUM/2010 DT.25 /5/2012 IN HIS FAVOUR UPON PERUSAL OF THAT ORDER IT IS SEEN THAT I N THAT CASE THE AO HAD TREATED THE ENTIRE BANK DEPOSITS AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE WITHDRAWALS MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE. UPON THESE FACTS, THE HON. TRIBUNAL HELD THAT MAKING ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF ONE SIDE OF THE BANK ACCOUNT IS NOT JUSTIFIED WITHOUT GIVING DUE ADJUSTMENT OF CASH WITHDRAWALS BY T HE ASSESSEE IN BETWEEN. 5.8 CONSIDERING THE ABOVE LEGAL POSITION, IT IS HE LD THAT THE GROSS AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS AMOUNTING IN ALL TO RS.38,90,000/- CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT AND CRE DIT HAS TO BE GIVEN FOR THE AMOUNTS WITHDRAWN BY THE APPELLANT FROM HIS TWO SAVIN GS BANK ACCOUNTS IN THE INTERIM, PRIOR TO MAKING EACH D EPOSIT. 5.9 THE QUESTION OF NEGATIVE CASH BALANCE AS PER THE A PPELLANT'S OWN CASH FLOW STATEMENT HOWEVER, STILL REMAINS. AS THE LD. AO HAS POINTED OUT, AS PER THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT, THERE WAS A NEGATI VE CASH BALANCE IN THE APPELLANT'S HANDS FOR THE MONTHS OF JULY AND AU GUST IN ORDER TO MAKE THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK. UPON PERUSAL OF THE SAID CASH FLOW STATEMENT, IT IS SEEN THAT THE PEAK OF SUCH NEGATIVE CA SH BALANCE WAS RS.5,27,200/-. THE APPELLANT HAS SOUGHT TO EXPLAIN THE DEPOSITS AS HAVING BEEN MADE OUT OF HIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. AS R EGARDS THE ISSUE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME, THE SAME HAS ALREADY BEEN DISC USSED AT LENGTH IN PARA-5.6 (SUPRA). ASSUMING THAT THE HOUSEHOLD EXPEN DITURE OF THE APPELLANT WAS BEING MET OUT OF THE INCOME OF HIS FAMI LY MEMBERS AND ALSO KEEPING IN MIND INCOME EARNED BY THE APPELLANT HIMSELF FROM PENSION AND INTEREST, A FURTHER AMOUNT OF RS.1,27,200/ - IS HELD TO BE EXPLAINED IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT ON AN ESTIMAT E BASIS. THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.4 LAKHS IS HELD TO BE UNEXPLAIN ED AND INCLUDIBLE IN THE APPELLANT'S INCOME FOR THE YEAR. 5.10 ACCORDINGLY, AN ADDITION OF RS.7,50,000/- (RS.3, 50,000 + RS.4,00,000) IS HEREBY UPHELD AND THE REMAINING ADDIT ION OF RS.31,40,000/- IS HEREBY DELETED. 5. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVE NUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-T AX (APPEALS) IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND TO THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 7 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) ERR ED ON FACTS AND IN LAW DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.38.90 L ACS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INCOME, INST EAD OF CONFIRMING IT. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) GR OSSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNTS WITHDRAWN HAD BEEN UTILIZED IN SOME OTHER MAN NER, THE BENEFIT OF WITHDRAWALS HAS TO BE GIVEN TO THE APPELL ANT FOR EXPLAINING THE SUBSEQUENT DEPOSITS. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) GR OSSLY ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE GROSS AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS C ANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CREDIT H AS TO BE GIVEN FOR THE AMOUNTS WITHDRAWN BY THE APPELLANT FROM SAVIN GS BANK ACCOUNTS IN THE INTERIM, PRIOR TO MAKING EACH DEPOSIT , WITHOUT BASING HIS CONCLUSION ON ANY EVIDENCE LINKING THE WITHDRAWAL S TO THE DEPOSITS. 5. FOR THESE AND SUCH OTHER REASONS AS MAY BE URGED AT T HE TIME OF THE HEARING, THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME-TAX (APPEALS) MAY BE VACATED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE REST ORED. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER O R DELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL DURING THE COURSE OF APPE LLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HON. ITAT. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE O N RECORD. WE FIND THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE HAS PASSED A VERY EXHAUSTIVE ORDER WHILE DELETING RS.31,40,000/- AND SUSTAINED R S.7,50,000/- OUT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.38,90,000/- MADE BY THE AO. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT COUNTER THE REASONING GIVE N BY THE LD. CIT(A) NOR HE COULD BRING ANY OTHER MATERIAL BEFORE US TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW THAN THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD.CIT(A). FIRST OF ALL THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DELETED ONLY RS.31,40,000/- OUT OF RS .38,90,000/- MADE BY THE AO AND HAS NOT DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION O F RS.38,95,000/- AS PER THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 TAKEN BY THE AO. THU S, GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 IS MISCONSTRUED. THE FINDING OF THE LD .CIT(A) THAT THE BENEFIT OF AMOUNTS WITHDRAWN EARLIER HAS TO BE GIVE N TO THE ASSESSEE FOR 8 EXPLAINING THE SUBSEQUENT DEPOSITS UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN OUR OPINION IS A REASONED ONE ESPECIALL Y WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS AN AGRICULTURIST AND THERE WAS NO OTHER EVIDENCE BE FORE THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNTS WITHDRAWN HAS BEEN UTILISED I N SOME OTHER MANNER. NO CONTRARY MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT TO OUR N OTICE TO DEVIATE FROM THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD.CIT(A) WHICH IS BASED ON VARIOUS DECISIONS AS WELL AS FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28-08-2014. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE DATED: 28 TH AUGUST, 2014 SATISH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT(A) CENTRAL, PUNE 4. THE CIT CENTRAL, PUNE 5. THE D.R, A PUNE BENCH 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE