ITO, Ward 43(4), Kolkata, Kolkata V. Sri Ram Ranjan Panja, Kolkata

ITA 1714/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4820 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K BANDYOPADHYAY JCITSRDR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business income; Corroborative evidences; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

, C , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH C KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1714/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-43(4), 3, GOVT. PLACE (WEST), KOLKATA-700001 / V/S . SRI RAM RANJAN PANJA 4B/54 VIDYAYATAN SARANI, KOLKATA-700 035 [ PAN NO.AEJPP 4068 A ] /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI A.K. BANDYOPADHYAY, JCIT-SR-DR /BY RESPONDENT NONE /DATE OF HEARING 08-08-2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09-08-2019 /O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS REVENUES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ARISES AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-13, KOLKATAS ORDER DATED 09.05.2016 PASSED IN CASE NO.471/CIT(A)-13/KOL/ITO.W.43(1)/2014-15, I NVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE A CT. CASE CALLED TWICE. NONE APPEARS AT DECEASED ASSESSE ES LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE ON BEHEST. THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED REVISED FORM-36 BE FORE US. THE SAME IS TAKEN ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE / HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE ARE ON PROCEEDED EX PARTE . 2. THE REVENUES FIRST SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE PLEADS THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS ADDITION OF 24,97,679/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING ITA NO.1714/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ITO WD-43(4), KOL. VS. SRI RAM RANJAN PANJA PAGE 2 OFFICER IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 25.03.2014. T HE CIT(A)S DETAILED DISCUSSION TO THIS EFFECT READS AS UNDER:- DECISION: 6. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESS EE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AQ AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE DECISION OF THIS APPEAL IS GIVEN AS UNDER : GROUND NUMBER 01 OF APPEAL RELATES TO THE ISSUE OF ADDITION ON INTRODUCTION OF FRESH CAPITAL TO THE EXTENT OF RS.24,97,679/- ON THE GROUND THAT NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCES WERE PRODUCED. ON THE CONTRARY THE AIR PRODUCED DETAILS & EVIDENCE S IN SUPPORT OF INTRODUCTION OF HIS CAPITAL AND GAVE HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION AS UNDER:- INTRODUCTION OF FRESH CAPITAL RS.3847679/- IN CONNECTION WITH THE ABOVE THE ASSESSEE INTRODUCE D THE FRESH CAPITAL BEING THE AFORESAID AMOUNT IN HIS PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN M/5 BABA EXPOR T. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT RS.13,50,000/- HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED BY THE CASH DUR ING THE YEAR WHICH WAS DULY ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.24,97,679/- H AVE BEEN ADDED BACK BY THE A.O. WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE . IN CONSEQUENCE THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL AND THE SOURCES OF RS.24,97,679/- BEING T HE BALANCE AMOUNT OUT OF TOTAL AMOUNT OF FRESH CAPITAL INTRODUCED ARE EXPLAINED BY THE AIR V IDE HIS LETTER DATED 08.04.16 SOURCES OF CASH FROM INTEREST ON POST OFFICE MIS, IN OF PPF SA LE OF LAND, AGRICULTURAL INCOME AMOUNT WITHDRAWN FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRM, SBI BOND MATURITY AND INCOME FROM AMANTRAN LODGE BEING TOTAL RS.17,31,284/- AND THE AIR FURTHER EXPL AINED THAT THE BALANCE OF RS.17,66,295/- HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF LOAN TA KEN FROM AXIS BANK DURGAPUR BRANCH AND FURNISHED THE DETAILS THERE OF. ALL THE AFORESAID T RANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH AXIS BANK AND OBC VIDE A/C NO. 15330 AND 1078 RESPECTIVE LY. THE DETAILS OF THE ABOVE INTRODUCTION ARE APPENDED BELOW IN COLUMN WISE:- SL.NO. HEAD AMOUNT REMARKS ANNEXURE 1 INTEREST ON POST OFFICE MIS 33200 MIS A/C NO.48467 AND 48464 AND 48253 UNDER PO BURDWAN A 2 INTEREST ON POST OFFICE PPF 20755 A/C NO.1738087844 WITH BURDWAN PO B 3 SALE OF LAND AT GANGARAMPUR 494845 AS PER DEED OF SRALE AND COMPUTATION SHEET C 4 AGRICULTURE INCOME 178000 OUT OF AGRICULTURE OPER ATION ` D 5 FROM SNAM RICE MILL PAN ABGF3647A 12500 AMOLUTN WITHDRAWN AN PARTNER E 6 FROM BABA BHAAIRAB WEIGH BRIDGE, PAN AAHGB6828L 2000000 AMOUNT WITHDRAWN AN PARTNER F 7 FROM BABA BHAIRAB TRADER, PAN AAHFB6921A 275000 AMOUNT WITHDRAWN AN PARTNER G 8 FROM ASHUTOSH EMPORIUM, PAN AAFFA1722A 275000 AMOUNT WITHDRAWN AN PARTNER H 9 FROM SBI BOND 109484 IN TERMS OF MATURITY OF SBI BOND I 10 INCOME FROM AMANTRAN LODGE 20000 BEING PROFIT FROM CEREMONIAL HOUSE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS SHOWN AS MISCELLANEOUS INCOME UNDER IT COMPUTATION SHEET. J ITA NO.1714/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ITO WD-43(4), KOL. VS. SRI RAM RANJAN PANJA PAGE 3 11 LOAN FROM, AXIS BANK 766295 FROM AXIS BANK, DGP BRANCH AS LOAN OUT OF WHICH THIS INVESTMENT BEING MADE IN TERMS OF INTRODUCTION OF FRESH CAPITAL. K TOTAL 2497579 CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE ME BEING FRE SH CAPITAL THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED DETAIL & EVIDENCES, AS PER APPELLANT, WHICH WERE NEITHER D EMANDED BY THE A.O NOR IT WAS SUBMITTED AS NO SHOW CAUSE WAS GIVEN, THE SAME WERE FORWARDED TO THE AO FOR EXAMINATION AND THE A.O. WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT ITS REMAND REPORT VIDE LET TER DATED 12.01.2016. THE REPLY OF THE AO WAS RECEIVED. PERUSAL OF THE SAME SHOWS THAT THE A. O. HAS NOT MADE ANY INQUIRY RATHER RELIED ON EARLIER FINDINGS OF THE AO WITHOUT CONSIDERING T HE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. HENCE, I PERUSED THE EVIDENCE 'SUBMITTED BY A/R. AS THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES ARE SELF SPEAKING & SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCES. THE EXPLANATION RELATING TO THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.L,78,000/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED FOR INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL NO EVIDENCES WERE SUBMITTED RELATING TO SALES. PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT THE APPELLAN T HAS GIVEN AFORESAID EXPLANATION ALONG WITH CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND DATE WISE, YEAR WISE ENTRI ES AND WITHDRAWALS FROM CAPITAL OF THE FIRMS. BUT WITHOUT CONTROVERTING OR DISPOSING THE S AME, AO HAS OBSERVED THAT NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCES HAS BEEN PRODUCED, NOR CASH FLOW STATEMEN T HAS BEEN SUPPORTED AND ALSO OBSERVED THAT APPELLANT DOES NOT MAINTAIN PERSONAL ORDER BOO K. THE AO DID NOT MADE ANY INQUIRY FROM THE AFORESAID FIRMS. ONCE THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITT ED DATE WISE ENTRY. THE APPELLANT FURTHER SAYS THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT GIVEN, NO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS GIVEN IN ORDER TO PREPARE SUCH DETAILS. AT APPELLATE STAGE THE APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE, OF AFORESAID CAPITAL FROM LOAN OF AXIS BANK, WITHDRAWAL FROM PP F, SALE OF LAND, MATURITY FROM BOND AND INCOME FROM LODGE. AS REGARD THE WITHDRAWAL OF CASH FROM THE FIRM ARE CONCERNED THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED CONFIRMATION ALONG WITH PAN NO. AND COPY OF BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31ST MARCH, 2011 WHICH SHOWS THAT WITHDRAWALS FROM THE CAPITAL OF THE FIRM HAS BEEN MADE. ONCE THE CONFIRMATION IS FILLED THE AO WAS REQUIRED TO CONTROVERT THE FINDING BY MAKING INQUIRY FROM RESPECTIVE FIRMS. NOTHING HAS BEEN BRO UGHT ON RECORD. THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSION AND EVIDENCES FURNISHED, AND THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD FOR MAKING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS NO T SUSTAINABLE. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT WHILE EXPLAINING THE CAPITAL INTR ODUCTION THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS.1,78,000/- THE APPELLANT F AILED TO GIVE ANY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY, PRIMARY OPERATIONS AND SALE OR PROOF OF INCOME. CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL EVIDENCES PLACED ON RECORD. THE ADDITION M ADE, BY THE AO AT RS.24,97,579/- IS RESTRICTED TO RS.1,78,000/-. REMAINING OF RS.23,19, 579/- IS HEREBY DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. IT IS APPARENT FROM THE ABOVE EXTRACTED FINDINGS TH AT CIT(A) HAS GOT THE IMPUGNED CASH CREDITS AMOUNTS RECONCILED TO ASSESSEES ELEVE N SOURCES. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAD SOUGHT A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IN THIS REGARD (SUPRA) WHEREIN NO FACTUAL VERIFICATION WAS CARRIED OUT. WE THEREFORE REJECT THE REVENUES ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF SHORT IMPUGNED ADDITION. TH E CIT(A)S FINDINGS ARE UPHELD. ITA NO.1714/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ITO WD-43(4), KOL. VS. SRI RAM RANJAN PANJA PAGE 4 3. NEXT COMES THE REVENUES SECOND SUBSTANTIVE GRIE VANCE SEEKING TO REVIVE UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS ADDITION OF 33,94,575/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DELETED IN THE LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AS UNDER :- (B) THE AO HAS ADDED RS.26,91,300/- WHICH WAS FOUN D DEPOSITED IN THE OBC BANK A/C NO.1860 ON THE GROUND THAT T HERE WAS AVAILABLE CASH BALANCE IN THE CASH BOOK BU T NO WITHDRAWAL ENTRIES WERE FOUND IN THE SAID CASH BOOK . THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT MAINTAIN PERSONAL CASH BOOK. THE AO CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS LACK OF PROPER EVIDENCE AND THE AO IGNORE THE EXPLANATION O F THE APPELLANT , THAT HIS SOURCE OF DEPOSIT WERE (A) FROM, EXISTING CASH BALANCE & WITHDRAWAL ( B) FORM EXISTING CASH BALANCE FROM, M/S BABA EXPORTS EARLIER WITHDRAWAL & (C) FROM, SMALL DEPOSITS. ON THE CONTRARY THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT FOLLOW ING ENTRIES ARE MADE IN CONNECTION WITH AFORESAID DETAILS IN CASH BOOK & BANK BOOK (CONTRA ENTRIES), THE SAME ARE NARRATED AS UNDER:- SL.NO. SOURCE OF DEPOSITS DATE DEPOSITS WHETHER RE FLECTED IN CASH BOOK & BANK BOOK. 1 COLLECTION FROM, DEBTORS KAMAL STORES RS.1000000 20.09.2010 9,50,000 YES 2 PARTLY KAMAL STORES RS.450000 24.09.2010 9,00,000 YES 3 KAMAL STORES RS.254600/- AND CASH SALE RS.190000/- 04.01.2011 3,47,800 YES 4 FROM ULLAHAS HOTEL NANDINI RS.336000/- AND FROM, RAM TRADERS RS.290000/- 22.02.2011 3,50,000 YES 5 MANIK SINGH RS.174000/- AND CASH SALE RS.374000/- 23.02.2011 1,00,000 YES 23.02.20`11 48,000 YES TOTAL 26,95,800 THE AFORESAID FACTS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT ARE CORR ECT AND THE PERUSAL OF CASH BOOK & BANK BOO SHOWS THAT CONTRA ENTREIS ARE MADE IN BOTH THE BOOKS & THE DEPOSITS IS MADE OUT OF THE SALE & COLLECTION OF THE APPELLANT. (C) THE AO FURTHER ADDED RS.2,20,000/- WHICH WAS F OUND DEPOSITED IN AXIS BANK A/C. THE APPELLANT STATED THAT THE SAME ARE DEPOSITED FROM C ASH BALANCES OF BABA EXPORTS AND OUT OF EXISTING CASH BALANCE, THE. DEPO SITS HAS BEEN MADE. THE A.O HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT ON THE GR OUND THAT NO CASH FLOW STATEMENT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED & THE APPELLANT DOES NOT MAINTAINED PERSO NAL CASH BOOK. AT APPELLATE PROCEEDING THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THA T THE DEPOSIT IS MADE IN THE BANK A/C FOR WHICH CONTRA ENTRY IS MADE IN THE CASH BOOK & BANK BOOK DATED 20.04.2010. THE A.O. FAILED TO UNDERSTAND ACCOUNTING ENTRY. THE ENTRY IS MADE I N WAY IN THE CASH BOOK '' BY BANK ' & IN THE BANK BOOK' TO CASH '. THERE IS NO NEED TO MAKE WITHDRAWAL IN THE CASH BOOK. DATE DEPOSIT SOURCE 08-07-2010 RS.2,20,000/- FROM SALE OF RICE TO M/S M A GAYARIS BHANDAR RS.1,20,000/- RAM TRADERS RS.1,00,000/- THE A.O. DID NOT CONSIDER THE CASH SALE AND COLLECT IONS REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSEE'S BOOKS OF A/C & HAVE ADDED BACK RS.33,94,575/- BEING UNEXPLAI NED CASH DEPOSITS WHICH HAVE BEEN SUBSTANTIATED BY THE A/R AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEF ORE CIT(A). PROPER ENQUIRY MUST HAVE BEEN MADE BY A.O. BEFORE ANY ADDITION U/S 68 OF ACT IN KHANDELWAL CONSTRUCTIONS VS. CIT 227 ITR 900(GAU.) ITA NO.1714/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ITO WD-43(4), KOL. VS. SRI RAM RANJAN PANJA PAGE 5 CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID DETAILS & CORRESPONDING E VIDENCES THE ADDITION DE BY THE A.O. IS WITHOUT ANY BASE AND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS THEREFOR E THE SAME IS BY DELETED. (D) THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.3,27,275/- WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN AXIS BANK A/C NO. 797. THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ACCEP TED ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT DOES NOT MAINTAINED PERSONAL CASH BOOK & NO FUND FLOW ST ATEMENT WERE SUBMITTED. ON THE CONTRARY THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE AF ORESAID DEPOSITS WERE FROM CASH SALES TOGETHER WITH COLLECTION FROM DEBTORS IN FOLLOWING MANNER: DATE AMOUNT DEPOSITED SOURCE 27.07.2010 2,00,000/- SOHAN LAL SATYAANAARAYAN RS.2 ,00,000/- 14.09.2011 57,200/- CASH SALE RS.5,72,000/- 04.01.2011 1,44,925/- CASH SALE TO ULLAHAS NANDINI RS.2,92,320/- 12.03.2011 1,0,000/- KAMAL STORES RS. 1,90,000/- 23.03.2011 5,150/- CASH SALE TOTAL 3,27,275/- THE AFORESAID AMOUNTS ARE REFLECTED IN CASH BOOK AS ' BY BANK ' & IN BANK BOOK ' TO CASH '. THE A.O. FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THE ENTRIES, THIS REQUIRE NO NARRATION TO WRITE WITHDRAWALS. (E) THE AO FURTHER ADDED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 60,000 /- WHICH WAS MADE IN OBC A/C NO. 7632 ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS CASH BALANCE BUT NO CR EDIT ENTRY WAS MADE IN THE CASH BOOKS. ON THE CONTRARY THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE DE POSIT WAS MADE ON 28.10.2010 ON A/C OF COLLECTION FROM M/S. KAMAL STORES OF RS.1,90,000 & RS ,60,000/- AND THE SAME WAS DEPOSITED OUT OF IT. THE APPELLANT STATED THAT FROM THE AUDIT ED ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2011, IT IS REVEALED THAT THE TOTAL SALES ; HAVE BEEN SHO WN AT RS.2,56,23,855/- WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY COLLECTED AND DEPOSITED , INTO SEVERAL BANK ACCOUNT S AND THERE IS NO SUNDRY DEBTORS IN THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE SAID F.Y. INCLUDING CASH SALE S AND THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED THE CASH IN HIS PNB A/C NO.-3336 OF RS.1,22,51,000/-, OBC A/C NO. 1860 OF RS.26,91,300/-, AXIS BANK A/C NO. 15330 RS.2,20,000/-, AXIS BANK A/C NO. 797 RS.3,27,275/-, AND OBC A/C 'NO. 7632 RS.60,000/-. PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT RECORD SHOWS THAT THE AO HAD ADDED RS.33,94,575/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS. TO EXPLAIN THE AFORESAID DEPOSITS THE APPELLANT HAD SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE AFORESAID CASH DEPOSITS WERE MADE FROM EXISTING CASH BALANCES WHICH WERE ON ACCOUNT OF SALES PROCEEDS, COLLECTION FROM DEBTORS, BUT THE SAME WAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE AO. THE AO ADDED CASH 'POSITS MADE I N PNB, OBC AND AXIS BANK ON THE GROUND THAT THOUGH THERE ARE LIABLE CASH BALANCES I N THE SAID CASH BOOKS BUT NO WITHDRAWAL ENTRIES WERE FOUND AND ALSO MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUN T OF NON MAINTENANCE OF PERSONAL CASH BOOKS AND NON SUBMISSIONS OF CASH FLOW STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF SAID CASH DEPOSITS AND TREATED IS OBSERVATION AS LACK OF SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES. ON THE CONTRARY THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT NO SPE CIFIC QUERY WAS MADE BY THE AO AND THE APPELLANT FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD INFORMED TO THE THAT IT WILL TAKE 20 DAYS TIME TO FURNISH SUCH DETAILS. IT WAS DIFFICULT TO SUBMIT DETAIL IN A MANNER AS IT HAD BEEN CALLED FOR SPECIFIC ENTRIES WERE REQUESTED TO CALLED FOR. THE APPELLANT FURTHER ARGUED THAT THERE WAS NO NEED OF MAINTAINING PERSONAL BOOK TO THE APPELLANT. AS REGARDS THE CASH FLOW FUND FLOW STATEMENT IS CONCERNED THE CASH BOOK PRODUCED BEFOR E THE AO WAS SHOWING THE CASH AVAILABILITY WHICH WAS NOT DENIED BY THE AO. CASH S ALES LEDGER WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO BUT AO TRIED TO FIND OUT WITHDRAWAL IN THE CASH BOO K WHICH IS NOT A PRACTICE AT ALL. ITA NO.1714/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ITO WD-43(4), KOL. VS. SRI RAM RANJAN PANJA PAGE 6 HOWEVER, WITHDRAWAL IN THE CASH BOOK IS TO BE PASSE D CONTRA ENTRY ' TO CASH BY BANK ' THE SAME ARE REFLECTED IN HIS CASH BOOK AND BANK BOOK A CCOUNT. THE OPENING BALANCE, DATE WISE, HAS BEEN RECORDED AND THE CONTRA ENTRY MADE TO THE BANK HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN THE CASH BOOK. AS IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED BY THE APPELLANT THAT BOOK S OF ACCOUNT HAS BEEN AUDITED AND CASH SALES OF THE APPELLANT IS SHOWING AT RS.2,56,23,855 /- DURING THE YEAR AND NO DEBTOR REMAINED OUTSTANDING. THE AFORESAID DETAILS WERE NOT CONSIDE RED BY THE AO. THE CASH SALES ITSELF WAS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.49,73,645/-. I HAVE PERUSED THE ARGUMENTS AND THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER OF THE AO. THE ORDER ITSELF SHOWS THAT THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT CASH BALANCE IS R EFLECTED IN THE CASH BOOK. THE TURNOVER OF THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT BEEN CHALLENGED. THE CON TRA ENTRY MADE IN THE CASH BOOK HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE AO. AS REGARD THE MA INTAINING OF PERSONAL CASH BOOK IS CONCERNED, IT CANNOT BE THE GROUND FOR MAKING ADDIT ION ALONE IN-THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT PARTICULARLY WHEN ALL BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE MAINTAI NED AND PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO WHICH WERE NOT REJECTED. THE APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH SOURCES ARE TO BE FROM DEBTOR'S COLLECTION AND CASH SALE WHICH ARE DULY REFLECTED IN THIS OF ACCOUNT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND THE SAME IS HERE BY DELETED. 4. FACTUAL POSITION IS NO DIFFERENT QUA THE INSTANT SECOND ISSUE AS WELL WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED ON RECORD THE RELEVANT SOURCE O F HIS CASH DEPOSITS TO VARIOUS PARTIES ON ACCOUNT OF SALE PROFITS INCLUDING VARIO US CUSTOMERS. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAILS TO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS EXPLAINED THE CORRESPONDING DETAILS IN CASE OF ALL THE SALE PROCEEDS AS WELL AS DEBTORS WHICH HAD NOWHERE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE C OURSE OF SCRUTINY. WE THEREFORE AFFIRM THE CIT(A)S FINDINGS QUA THIS SECOND ISSUE AS WELL. 5. THE REVENUES THIRD GRIEVANCE IS THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAD RIGHTLY ADDED THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION OF 19.50 LAC SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVIDE FOR ALL THE CORRESPONDING DETAILS REGARDING M/S RONI INTERNATIO NAL. WE NOTICE THAT THE CIT(A)S FINDINGS HEREIN AS WELL HAVE DISCUSSED THE ENTIRE I SSUE IN DETAILED TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SQUARED UP HIS TRANSACTIONS WITH THE A BOVE STATED PARTIES AS UNDER:- NEXT GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 19,50,000/- THE A.O ADDED RS.19,50,000/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE RELATION OF R ON(INTERNATIONAL WITH THE APPELLANT COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED. THE A.O. FURTHER STATED THA T OUT OF TOTAL TRANSACTION OF RS,44,50,000/- IT IS NOT ASCERTAINED AS THE A/C HAS BEEN SQUARED OF FOR REMAINING BALANCE OF RS.19,50,000/- OR NOT. ON THE COUNTRY THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT ENTIRE TRANSITION HAS BEEN RED UP M/S RONI INTERNATIONAL IS A PROPRIETARY CONCERN UNDER T HE PROPRIETORSHIP OF CHITTARANJAN PANJA WHO IS NOW DECEASED. MAKING SCRU TINY OF THE EXTRACT OF LEDGER A/C BABA EXPORT IN THE BOOKS OF RONI INTERNATIONAL HAVING PAN: AEJPP4069B IT IS CONFIRMED THAT RANI INTERNATIONAL RECEIVED RS.44,50,000/- FROM ITA NO.1714/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ITO WD-43(4), KOL. VS. SRI RAM RANJAN PANJA PAGE 7 M/S BABA EXPORT THROUGH A/C PAYEE CHEQUES WHICH WAS ISSUED FROM PNB VIDE A/C NO.4430 OF M/S RONI INTERNATIONAL . WITH A VIEW TO REDEEMING THE SAID AMOUNT,, BABA EXPORT RECEIVED THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF ADVANCES OF RS.44,50,000/- THROUGH A/C PAYEE CHEQUES VIDE CHEQUE NO.304402 OF RS.25,00,000/P- AND CHEQUE NO.-304204 RS.19,50,000/- AND DEPOSITED BOTH THE CH EQUES TO PNB A/C NO.0006 AS TEMPORARY ADVANCES RECEIVED BACK. THE A.O. FAILED T O GET THE EXAMINATION OF RONI INTERNATIONAL AND IN CONSEQUENCE THE ANOMALY APPEAR S WHICH HAVE BEEN SUBSTANTIATED BY THE A/R BEFORE THE CIT(A) WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE RELEVANT PAPERS IN THIS REGARD. THE SAME EXPLANATION CAN BE OFFERED AS MENTIONED IN THE EARLIER POINT NO. 2 IN ITI VS SURESH KALMADI (1988) 32 TTJ (PUNE ) TM 300 IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE IDENTITY OF CREDITOR IS ESTABLISHED AND SHOWN TO BE NOT FICTITIOUS, THE BURDEN SHIFTS ON TO THE DEPT. TO SHOW AS TO WHY THE ENTRY STILL REPR ESENTED THE SUPPRESSED INCOME OF THE : ASSESSEE. THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN THIS REGARD HAVE BEEN PROVED. IN CIT V/S SAHIBGANJ ELECTRIC CABLE (P) LTD. (1978) 11 5ITR 408 (CAL.) WHERE THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCES RECEIVED BY CHECKS AND REPAYMENT ALSO MADE BY CHEQUES THROUGH BOTH THE PARTIES BANK ACCOUNTS, THE CREDITORS GAVE CONFO RMATION MENTIONING IN THERE PAN ITO WITHOUT MAKING ANY FURTHER ENQUIRY DISBELIEVING THE EVIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE MAKE ADDITION. ITAT HELD THE ADDITIONS NOT JUSTIFIE D AS THE ASSESSEE DISCHARGE THE ONUS. HIGH COURT HELD THAT TRIBUNAL IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID FACT IT IS CLEAR THAT IT WAS NOT A CASE OF UNEXPLAINED INCOME. THE AO HAS ADDED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF HIS OBSERVATI ON STATING THAT IT IS NOT ASCERTAINED WHETHER THE SAME AMOUNT HAS BEEN SQUARE D UP, WITH RONI INTERNATIONAL ,OR NOT. THE ENTRIES REGARDING THESE TRANSACTIONS H AVE NOT REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ALSO IN THE GROUND THAT THE RELATIONSHI P WITH THE RONI INTERNATIONAL WAS NOT EXPLAINED. THE AFORESAID OBSERVATION OF THE AO CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE AO HAS NOT REACHED TO ANY CONCLUSION PARTICULARLY WHEN THESE T RANSACTIONS WERE STATED TO BE AS AN ADVANCED WHICH CANNOT BE TURNED AS A INCOME. MOR EOVER, THE AO DID NOT ENQUIRED FROM THE BANK SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT WHETHER TH E AFORESAID RECEIPT HAVE BEEN REFLECTED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OR NOT SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCES BEFORE THE : UNDER SIGNED CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE AMOUNT WAS SQUARED UP AND TH E SOURCES OF THE TRANSACTION WERE EXPLAINED. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE APPELLANT SUBMISS ION AND THE FACT OF THE CASE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS HERE BY DELETED AND THE GROUND OF THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 6. WE THEREFORE CONCLUDE THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTL Y DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION AS THE ASSESSEE SUCCESSFULLY ESTABLISHED D URING THE COURSE OF LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THAT THE IMPUGNED SUM OF 19.50 LAC HAD COME AS ADVANCE RECEIVED. THIS THIRD SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IS ALSO DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. 7. LASTLY COMES THE REVENUES FOURTH SUBSTANTIVE GR OUND THAT CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION AMOUNT OF 4.15 LAC AS INCOME FROM AMANTRAN LODGE & COMMUNITY HALL WITHOUT ANY COGENT EVIDENCE. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAILS TO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ALL PA RTY-WISE DETAILS OF RECEIPTS REGARDING HIS GUEST HOUSE GIVING RISE TO TOTAL RECEIPTS OF 41.15 LAC WHICH STAND ASSETS @ 8% IN ITA NO.1714/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ITO WD-43(4), KOL. VS. SRI RAM RANJAN PANJA PAGE 8 THE LOWER APPELLATE DISCUSSION. THE REVENUES ARGUM ENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY DETAILS GOES CONTRARY TO THE FACTS ON RECORD. W E ACCORDINGLY AFFIRM THE CIT(A)S FINDINGS QUA THIS LAST ISSUE AS WELL. 8. THIS REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 09/08/2019 SD/- SD/- ( &) (( &) (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) (S.S.GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *DKP-SR.PS ) - 09/08/2019 / KOLKATA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-ITO WARD-43(4), 3, GOVT. PLACE (W),KOLKA TA-001 2. /RESPONDENT-SRI RAM RANJAN PANJA 4B/54 VIDYAYATAN SARANI,KOLKATA-35 3. , - / CONCERNED CIT 4. - - / CIT (A) 5. . ((, , , /DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. 2 / GUARD FILE. BY ORD ER/ , /TRUE COPY/ ,,