GIRDHAR GOPAL RASTOGI, MIRZAPUR V. I.T.O. WARD 3(1), MIRZAPUR

ITA 162/ALLD/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2870 (ITAT-ALLAHABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R K KALYANI
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Competent authority; Set aside
• Section: 142(1); 133A; 143(2); 131; 139; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD SMC BENCH, ALLAHABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.162/ALLD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SRI GIRDHAR GOPAL RASTOGI, DHUNDI KATRA, MIRZAPUR, U.P. PAN-AANPR8525N V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ALLAHABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: MR. R.K. KALYANI, C.A. RESPONDENT BY: MR. A.K. SINGH, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 29.09.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21.10.2021 O R D E R VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.09.2019 OF CIT(A), ALLAHABAD FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. BECAUSE ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN ORIGINAL PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT IS BEYOND THE FACT AND AGAINST THE LAW AND THEREFORE, LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE AND QUASHED. 2. BECAUSE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,50,000/- U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 3. BECAUSE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) HAS ERRED AND ACTED ILLEGALLY IN HIS DECISION THAT NO DOCUMENT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO SHOW THE CASH IN HAND OF RS. 9,76,764/- AS ON 31.03.2011. 4. BECAUSE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) HAS ERRED AND ACTED ILLEGALLY IN HIS DECISION THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS SUBMITTED OF FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURN FOR AY 2011-12. 5. BECAUSE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) COMPLETELY IGNORED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION MADE ON 04.09.2019 WHICH INCLUDES ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INCOME TAX RETURN OF AY 2011-12 WHICH WAS FILED VIDE ACKNOWLEDGMENT NO. 0301201934 DATED 30.09.2011 ALONG WITH BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2011. ITA NO.162/ALLD/2019 SRI GIRDHAR GOPAL RASTOGI 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED AN ADDITIONAL GROUNDS WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION U/S 143(2) WITHOUT TALKING PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE PCIT REQUIRED FOR MANUAL SELECTION FOR SCRUTINY. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING THIS GROUND OF APPEAL AS NOT PRESSED. 3. SINCE THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LEGAL IN NATURE AND GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER THEREFORE, IT WAS TAKEN UP FIRST FOR HEARING. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT TAKEN UP BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT OBTAINED NECESSARY SANCTION FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AS PER THE INSTRUCTION OF CBDT. SO FAR AS THE ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IS CONCERNED, IT IS NOTED THAT THIS GROUND IS VERY MUCH RAISED BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3 AS UNDER; 2. BECAUSE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY SELECTING THE CASE FOR SCRUTINY UNDER COMPULSORY SCRUTINY CRITERIA. THERE WAS NO INFORMATION NOR SATISFACTION OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR CONDUCTING SURVEY AND THUS THE ENTIRE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS IS NOTHING BUT A BIASED ACTION ON THE PART OF THE DEPARTMENT WHICH IS ILLEGAL AND UNJUSTIFIED. 3. BECAUSE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY SELECTING THE CASE FOR SCRUTINY UNDER COMPULSORY SCRUTINY CRITERIA, AS THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS WAS NOT CONCLUDED FINALLY. ONCE THE ASSESSEE RAISED THIS GROUND BEFORE THE CIT(A) THEN EVEN IF NO ARGUMENTS WERE ADDRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DECIDED THIS GROUND ON MERITS. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT A FRESH ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT IT IS ARISING FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHEREIN IT HAS DISPOSED OF THIS GROUND AS UNDER:- I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED ALONG WITH THE DETAILS FILED ENCLOSE THEREIN. APPELLANT HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANYTHING IN SUPPORT OF THESE GROUNDS IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION, WHICH IS GENERAL IN NATURE. HENCE THESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. ITA NO.162/ALLD/2019 SRI GIRDHAR GOPAL RASTOGI 3 4. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THIS GROUND WAS VERY MUCH RAISED BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT IT COULD NOT BE INCORPORATED IN FORM NO. 36 BUT HAS RAISED SEPARATELY IN THE FORM OF ADDITIONAL GROUND THE SAME IS ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION. 5. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO LEGAL AND VALID SURVEY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS IT WAS NOT COMPLETED THEREFORE, THE COMPULSORY SCRUTINY TAKEN UP BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT TAKEN THE NECESSARY APPROVAL FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. HE HAS REFERRED TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS ADMITTED THAT THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS WERE INTERRUPTED BY A POLITICAL LEADERS AS WELL AS LOCAL LEADERS OF VYAPAR MANDAL ALONGWITH THE MOB OF PERSONS WHO ENTERED INTO THE BUSINESS PREMISES AND STOPPED THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS. HE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT EXCEPT THE PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE RECORDED DURING THE SURVEY, NOTHING INCRIMINATING WAS FOUND OR IMPOUNDED BY THE SURVEY TEAM. THEREFORE, THE INCONCLUSIVE SURVEY IS NOT VALID SURVEY TO AUTHORIZE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SELECT THE CASE UNDER THE COMPULSORY SCRUTINY. THE LEARNED AR HAS CONTENDED THAT IN CASE OF SELECTED SCRUTINY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO TAKE PERMISSION OF THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY AND IN ABSENCE OF THE REQUESTED PERMISSION, A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) IS NOT VALID. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A CASE OF SURVEY CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE GOT THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS DISTURBED AND INTERRUPTED BY CALLING POLITICAL LEADERS AS WELL AS THE LOCAL LEADERS OF VYAPAR MANDAL. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 131 TO THE ASSESSEE AND RECORDED HIS STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, LEDGER ETC., DURING THE POST SURVEY ENQUIRY. THEREFORE, THE PROCEEDINGS WERE COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY CONDUCTING THE POST SURVEY ENQUIRY AND THEREAFTER THE MATTER WAS SELECTED UNDER COMPULSORY SCRUTINY BY ISSUING A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143 (2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. ITA NO.162/ALLD/2019 SRI GIRDHAR GOPAL RASTOGI 4 THE LEARNED DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON VARIOUS DECISIONS BUT THE SAME WERE NOT RELEVANT ON THIS ISSUE AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DULY ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WHICH IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139 OF THE ACT DESPITE THE SURVEY CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 133A ON 6.1.2012. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT ON 12 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE EXTENDED DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN ON 31 ST AUGUST, 2012. ONLY IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE RETURN THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 24 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012. THE LEARNED DR HAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE CRITERIA AS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE FOR SELECTING THE CASE UNDER COMPULSORY SCRUTINY IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 24.9.2012 AS THE SAID SCRUTINY SELECTION CRITERIA DATED 28.02.2012 IS APPLICABLE ON THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED PRIOR TO 1.4.2012. 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THERE WAS A SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 06 TH JANUARY, 2012. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED THE FACTS REGARDING THE INTERRUPTION OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SURVEY IN PARA 2 AS UNDER:- IN THIS CASE DURING SURVEY PROCEEDING, PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF SRI GIRDHAR GOPAL RASTOGI WAS RECORDED AND AT THE SAME TIME LOCAL LEADERS OF VYAPAR MANDAL AND POLITICIANS WITH LOCAL MOB ENTERED IN THE BUSINESS PREMISE AND STOPPED THE SURVEY PROCEEDING CREATING HINDRANCE. SURVEY PROCEEDING WAS NOT CONCLUDED FINALLY. ACCORDINGLY, A SUMMON WAS ISSUED TO SRI GIRDHAR GOPAL RASTOGI FIXING DATE 24.01.2012 TO APPEAR ALONGWITH ALL BOOKS AND VOUCHERS. IN RESPONSE SRI GIRDHAR GOPAL RASTOGI APPEARED ON 25.01.2012 AND GRANTED ADJOURNMENT ON HIS REQUEST FOR 27.01.2012 ON 27.01.2012 SRI GIRDHAR GOPAL RASTOGI APPEARED ALONGWITH CASH BOOK LEDGER ETC. AND HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED. INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 131 OF THE I.T. ACT BOOKS WERE IMPOUNDED AS PER IMPOUNDING ORDER DATED 27.01.2012. ITA NO.162/ALLD/2019 SRI GIRDHAR GOPAL RASTOGI 5 7. THIS FACT AS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THIS FACT AS GROUND FOR CHALLENGING THE COMPULSORY SCRUTINY TAKEN UP BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED AS UNDER:- AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT SUBMITTED THAT A SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE ACT WAS AUTHORIZED IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT BY THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY, WHICH STARTED ON 06.01.2012 AT 12.30 PM AND CONTINUED UP TO 8.25 PM. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT GIRDHAR GOPAL RASTOGI WAS RECORDED AND AFTER SOMETIME LOCAL LEADERS OF VYAPAR MANDAL AND POLITICIAN WITH LOCAL MOB ENTERED THE BUSINESS PREMISE AND STOPPED THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS CREATING HINDRANCE. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HIMSELF MENTIONED THIS FACT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND HAS FURTHER STATED THAT SURVEY PROCEEDING WAS NOT CONCLUDED FINALLY. 8. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 133A WERE DULY CONDUCTED ON 6.1.2012 BUT DUE TO INTERRUPTION, THE POLITICAL LEADERS AND LOCAL LEADERS OF THE VYAPAR MANDAL, THE PROCEEDINGS COULD NOT REACH TO THE CONCLUSION AND WERE TO STOPPED UNCONCLUDED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREAFTER, CONDUCTED A POST SURVEY ENQUIRY BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 131 TO THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR ALONGWITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER RECORDS. IN RESPONSE TO THE SUBMISSIONS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE APPEARED ALONGWITH THE RECORD AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND HIS STATEMENT WAS ALSO RECORDED UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, APART FROM THE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT ON 6.1.2012, A STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO RECORDED UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 27.01.2012. IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS NO MUCH GAP BETWEEN THE SURVEY AND THE POST SURVEY ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE THE POST SURVEY ENQUIRY ARE PART AND PARTIAL OF THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS AND WOULD DEEM TO BE CONCLUDED ON THE CONCLUSION OF THE POST SURVEY ENQUIRY ON 27.01.2012. THUS, WHEN THE FACT OF THE CONDUCTING THE SURVEY AS WELL AS THE POST SURVEY ENQUIRY IS NOT IN DISPUTE THEN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD CERTAINLY FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF SELECTION UNDER COMPULSORY SCRUTINY. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ITA NO.162/ALLD/2019 SRI GIRDHAR GOPAL RASTOGI 6 OF THE CASE, I DO NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANCE OR MERIT IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME IS DISMISSED. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ORIGINAL GROUNDS IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 9. GROUND NOS. 2 TO 6 ARE REGARDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,50,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL CASH DEPOSITS / RECEIPTS BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION TOTAL AMOUNTING TO RS. 8,50,000/- FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY ACCEPTABLE EXTENSION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE THEREOF. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REFERRED THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE RECORDED ON 27.01.2015 AND OBSERVED THAT THE SAID EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CASH BALANCE WITH MOBILE PHONE AND SIM CARD BUSINESS IS THE SOURCE OF THOSE CASH DEPOSITS / CREDITS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 8,50,000/- UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DOING BUSINESS OF MOBILE HANDSET AND MOBILE SIM CARD IN THE PAST IN THE NAME OF RASTOGI MOBILE ZONES. THE SAID BUSINESS WAS CLOSED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE CASH BALANCE AT THE TIME OF CLOSING THE BUSINESS OF THE RASTOGI MOBILE ZONE WAS RS. 9,76,764/- AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2011. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR 2009-10 AND 2010-11 IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON 27.01.2015 WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SOURCE OF CASH AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE THE CIT(A) WAS NOT IMPRESSED WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 10. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE CASH AS AVAILABLE IN HAND AT THE TIME OF CLOSING OF THE BUSINESS OF MOBILE HANDSET AND SIM RECHARGE COUPON IN THE NAME OF M/S RASTOGI MOBILE ZONE. HE HAS REFERRED TO THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE-SHEETS OF THE ITA NO.162/ALLD/2019 SRI GIRDHAR GOPAL RASTOGI 7 ASSESSEE AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2010 AND 31 ST MARCH, 2011. THUS THE LEARNED AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A CASH IN HAND IN THE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERNED OF THE ASSESSEE M/S RASTOGI MOBILE ZONE WHICH WAS TAKEN TO THE OTHER PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERNED OF THE ASSESSEE M/S OM JEWELLERS. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS OF EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF THESE CASH CREDITS. THUS, HE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 11. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE BALANCE-SHEET OF M/S RASTOGI MOBILE ZONE AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2011, THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING NEGATIVE OF BALANCE 60,202/- AND THERE WERE UNSECURED LOANS OF RS. 10,90,000/-. THEREFORE, THE SAID CASH OF RS. 9,76,764/- IS NOTHING BUT REPRESENTING THE UNSECURED LOANS AND CAN BE UTILIZED FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE UNSECURED LOAN OF THE CLOSE BUSINESS. HE HAS THEN REFERRED TO THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN AN UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 2,60,000/- AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2011 WHICH SHOWS THAT THE REMAINING UNSECURED LOAN WAS REPAID BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, AVAILABILITY OF THE SAID CASH IN THE HAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT POSSIBLE. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 12. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT TO THE TUNE OF RS. 8,50,000/-. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE CASH CREDIT OF THE SAID AMOUNT IN THE CASH BOOKS BUT THE SOURCE OF THE SAID IS EXPLAINED AS CASH IN HAND AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2011 IN THE CLOSE BUSINESS OF M/S RASTOGI MOBILES. THE BALANCE-SHEET OF M/S RASTOGI MOBILE AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2011 PLACED AT PAGE 26 OF THE APPEAL PAPERS SHOWS THAT THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING A NEGATIVE BALANCE OF RS. 60,202/- AND THERE WERE UNSECURED LOAN BALANCE OF RS. 10,90,000/-. AGAINST THIS LIABILITY, THE CASH IN HAND IS SHOWN AT RS. 9,76,764/- THEREFORE, THE SAID CASH IN HAND AS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF M/S RASTOGI ZONE AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2011 CANNOT BE ITA NO.162/ALLD/2019 SRI GIRDHAR GOPAL RASTOGI 8 TAKEN TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE UNSECURED LOAN LIABLE WAS MORE THAN THE CASH IN HAND. FURTHER IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.2,60,000/- WHICH MEANS THE REMAINING UNSECURED LOANS WAS REPAID BY THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH CREDIT OF RS.8,50,000/- AND REPAYMENT OF THE UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.8,30,000/-. THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE-SHEET AS REFERRED BY THE LEARNED AR HAS BEEN RE-CASTED AND FILED AT THIS STAGE BUT WAS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. EVEN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT BALANCE OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWN IN THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE-SHEET AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2011 IS CONTRARY TO THE BALANCE-SHEET OF M/S RASTOGI MOBILE ZONE WHEREIN THERE IS A NEGATIVE CAPITAL BALANCE. THE LEARNED AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LOAN AMOUNT IS MISTAKENLY SHOWN AS CAPITAL BALANCE IN THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE-SHEET BUT THE SAME IS THE UNSECURED LOAN AMOUNT OF RS. 10,29,797/-. THIS FIGURE ALONGWITH THE CURRENT LIABILITIES OF M/S OM JEWELLERS IS AGAIN NOT MATCHING WITH THE UNSECURED LOAN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AT PAGE NO. 26 OF THE APPEAL PAPER. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS GROSSLY FAILED TO EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE CASH CREDITS OF RS. 8,50,000/-. 13. ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS UPHELD. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.10.2021 THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING AT ALLAHABAD. SD/- [VIJAY PAL RAO] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 21/10/2021 SH ITA NO.162/ALLD/2019 SRI GIRDHAR GOPAL RASTOGI 9 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) , ALLAHABAD 4. CIT 5. DR - BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR