Amit Digvijay Singh, Nashik V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 1724/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9616 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 12-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL CHAWARE
• Keywords: Validity of assessment
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 68; 148; 2

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE , ! ' , $ % BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NO.1724/PUN/2014 ' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 SHRI AMIT DIGVIJAY SINGH, DURGESH RESIDENCY APT, ANANDWALLI, GANGAPUR ROAD, NASHIK 422 011. PAN : AQZPS2999F. . / APPELLANT V/S THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, GADKARI CHOWK, NASHIK. . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ANIL CHAWARE. ( / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS EMANATING OUT OF TH E ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) I, NASHIK DT.01.08 .2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON R ECORD ARE AS UNDER :- 2.1 ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT ON 24.12.2009 DE CLARING TOTAL LOSS OF RS.43,12,792/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS THEREAFTE R / DATE OF HEARING : 29.03.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06.04.2017 2 FINALIZED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT.31.1 2.2009 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.75,09,118/-. THEREAFTER NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 27.03 .2012 AND SERVED ON ASSESSEE ON 29.03.2012. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE ON 24.12.2009 DECLARING LOSS OF RS.43,12,792/- BE TREATED AS R ETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THEREAFTE R THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT V IDE ORDER DT.28.03.2013 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.7,63,85,007/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE C ARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO VIDE ORDER DT.01.08.2014 G RANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FO LLOWING GROUNDS : 1). ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW THE CIT(A)-1 HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE A . O. HAS ISSUED THE MANDATORY NOTICE U / S.143(2) OF THE ACT . 2) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW THE CIT(A)-1 HAS ERRED I N REJECTING THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS INVALID IN LAW SINCE THE A.O. HAS NOT ISSUED THE MANDATORY NOTICE U/S. 143(2) TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE ORDER PASSED U / S.147 R . W .S. 143(3) IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 3) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW THE CIT(A)-1 HAS ERRED I N CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS . 19 , 85,000/- TOWARDS CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE A.O. IN HIS REMAND REPORT HAS ACCEPTED THE SAID DEPOSITS TO BE OUT OF EXPLAINED SOURCES. 4) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW THE CIT(A)-1 HAS ERRED I N CONFIRMING ADDITION O F RS .1 9 , 85 , 000/- TOWARDS CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT WITHOUT CONSIDERIN G TH E FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED CASH BOOK IN WHICH THE R E W A S SU F F ICIENT BALANCE BEFORE THE DATE OF THE DEPOSITS. 5) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW THE CIT(A)-1 HAS ERRED I N CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.19,85,000/- TOWARDS CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE CASH BOOK MAINTAINED AND ONLY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURE S. 3 3. ON THE DATE OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED. FURTH ER ON PERUSAL OF THE CASE RECORDS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE NOTICES ISSUED EARLIER TO THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN RETURNED UNDELIVERED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE REMARK ALWAYS DOOR LOCKED-LEFT ADDR ESS. WE FURTHER FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED HIS NEW ADD RESS. IN SUCH A SITUATION, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EXP ARTE-QUA THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 4. GROUND NOS.1 AND 2 ARE WITH RESPECT TO CHALLENGING TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THE PRESENT GROUNDS, ASSESSEE B EFORE US HAS CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT ON THE GROUND THAT NO MANDATORY NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE . WE FIND THAT THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS ALSO CHALLENGED B Y THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD.CIT(A). LD.CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSU E AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ASSESSMENT ORDER, APPELLANTS DETAILED SUBMISSIONS, AOS REMAND REPORTS, APPELLANTS COUNTER COMMENTS AND TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS REGARDS APPELLANT S GROUND NO.1 RELATING TO THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER FOR NON- ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT AND NOT GIVIN G HIM SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING, I FIND FROM THE RECORD THAT ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) ON 30/11/2012 ALONGWITH AN ANNEXURE REQU IRING THE APPELLANT TO FURNISH CERTAIN DETAILS IN REGARD TO HIS BANK ACCOUNT NO.15987 WITH BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, KALANAGA R BRANCH, MUMBAI. THE AO INTER-ALIA HAD ALSO ASKED A BOUT THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED ACCO UNT AND THE DETAILS OF STDR PROCEEDS AMOUNTING TO RS.50,25, 150/- IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT. THESE NOTICES AND THE ANNEX URE ARE AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE APPELLANTS SUBMISSION IN REGARD TO NON-ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S143(2) WAS SENT TO THE AO VI DE THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 09/06/2014. AO IN HIS REMAND R EPORT DATED 30/06/2014 HAS REITERATED THAT NOTICES U/S 14 3(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED ON 30/11/2012. AO FU RTHER STATED THAT IN APPELLANTS OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2009-1 0, A LETTER WAS ISSUED ON THE SAME DAY I.E. 30/11/2012 WHICH WA S SERVED ON 01/12/2012. THE AO HAS STATED THAT THE A BOVE 4 REFERRED TWO NOTICES WERE SERVED ALONGWITH THE ABOV E LETTER. AO HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS AN ACKNOWLEDGM ENT OF THE RECEIPT OF THE ABOVE LETTER (ISSUED ON 30/11/20 122) BY THE APPELLANT ON THE OFFICE COPY OF THIS LETTER. AO FU RTHER OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE APPELLANT WAS CONSISTENTLY REFUSING TO ACCEPT NOTICES DISPATCHED BY SPEED POST, HE HAD TO TAKE SP ECIAL CARE TO SERVE THE NOTICES THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OR THE N OTICE SERVER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, AO HAS REJECTED THE APPELLANT S THE NOTICE SERVER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, AO HAS REJECT ED THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION THAT NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS N OT SERVED. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RECORD, I HAVE FOUND THE OF FICE COPY OF THIS LETTER ON RECORD AND FIND THAT SOME STAFF MEMB ER OF JUPITER HOTEL, NASHIK HAS RECEIVED IT ON 01/12/2012 . A STAMP OF JUPITER HOTEL HAS BEEN AFFIXED ON IT. THI S HOTEL BELONGS TO M/S HOTEL SAI SIDDHI (P) LTD. WHERE THE APPELLANT IS ONE OF THE DIRECTORS. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS , I HAVE NOTICED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD REFUSED THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 04/09/2013 ASKING HIM TO FURNISH CERTAIN DETAILS AN D ITNS- 37 DATED 14/10/2013 FIXING THE APPEAL FOR 06/11/201 3. THE LETTER AND THE NOTICE COULD ONLY BE SERVED ON 05/10 /2013 AND 05/11/2013 RESPECTIVELY THROUGH AN INSPECTOR, ATTAC HED TO THE OFFICE OF ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK. IT I S FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD ALSO REFUSED ACCEPT ING ITNS- 37 DATED 04/041/2014 FIXING THE APPEAL FOR 21/04/20 14. IN THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED ABOVE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT AO HAD ISSUED NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 1 42(1) AND 30/11/2012 ALONGWITH THE ANNEXURE ASKING FOR CERTAI N DETAILS IN REGARD TO APPELLANTS BANK ACCOUNTS AND SOURCE OF DEPOSITS THEREIN. MOREOVER, IT IS ALSO FOUND OUT F ROM THE RECORD THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT TAKEN ANY OBJECTI NG IN RESPECT OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) DURING THE CO URSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AS REGARDS APPELLANTS CON TENTION THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT GIVEN TO HIM, I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT HIMSELF DID NOT ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS BE FORE THE AO. THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE IN REGARD TO VARIOUS OT HER CASES OF THIS GROUP SUGGESTS THAT THE APPELLANTS WERE NOT FU RNISHING DETAILS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT/REASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, APPELLANTS CON TENTION RAISING QUESTION ON THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT ORDE R FOR NON- ISSUE OF NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) AND NOT GIVI NG HIM SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY IS NOT TENABLE AND HENCE REJ ECTED. GROUND NO.1 IS DISMISSED. 5. BEFORE US, LD. D.R. TOOK US THROUGH THE FINDINGS OF LD.CIT(A ) AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. D.R. AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WITH RESPECT TO CHALLENGING THE VALIDIT Y OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON ACCOUNT OF NON-ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U /S 143(2) OF THE ACT, WE FIND THAT LD.CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMA ND 5 REPORT RECEIVED FROM AO, HAS NOTED THAT AO HAD ISSUED NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURE A SKING FOR DETAILS OF ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT AND SOURCE OF DEP OSITS THEREIN. BEFORE US, ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF LD.CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THE AFORE SAID FACTS, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD .CIT(A) AND THUS THE GROUNDS 1 AND 2 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMIS SED. 7. GROUNDS 3 TO 5 ARE WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION OF RS.19,85,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK. 8. AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED AGGREGATE C ASH DEPOSITS OF RS.19,85,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT NO.64307 OF DEEGESH TOURS AND TRAVELS, PROPRIETARY CONCERN, OF THE A SSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH D EPOSITS. AO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF CA SH DEPOSITS DESPITE VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. HE THEREFORE CONSIDERED THE AGGREGATE CASH DEPOSITS TO BE UNEXPLAINE D AND ADDED IT TO THE INCOME. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, AS SESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO UPHELD THE ORDER OF AO BY HOLDING AS UNDER :- 10.11 AS REGARDS ADDITION OF RS.19,85,000/- TOWARD S CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK OF MAHARASHTRA CC A/C NO.1598 7, IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.50,000/-; RS.14,10,000/- AND RS.5,25,000/- WERE MADE ON 29/04/2004, 17/02/2005 AND 31/03/2005 RESPECTIVELY. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT CASH DEPOSITS WERE M ADE OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT ON EARLIER OCCASIONS. IT HAS BEEN NOTICED FROM THE BAN K STATEMENTS THAT THERE IS A WIDE GAP BETWEEN THE DAT ES OF CASH WITHDRAWAL AND CASH DEPOSITS. THE GAP RANGES F ROM NUMBER MORE THAN 4 MONTHS PARTICULARLY IN RESPECT O F CASH 6 DEPOSIT RS.14,10,000/- IN MY OPINION IS BEYOND REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME. IT HAS FURTHER BEEN NOTI CED FROM THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE APPELL ANT WAS ALWAYS IN NEED OF FUNDS. CONSIDERING THIS FACT IT C ANNOT BE ACCEPTED THAT SUCH A HUGE AMOUNT OF CASH WAS KEPT I DLE FOR SUCH A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOV E FACTS, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS AGGREGATING TO RS.19,85,000/- CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS OUT OF EXPLAINED SOURCES AND THEREFORE, ADDITION TO THE EX TENT OF RS.19,85,000/- IS CONFIRMED. 10.12 AS REGARDS CREDITS OF RS.12,25,000/- AND RS.25,00,000/-, IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT THESE WERE REVERSED BY DEBIT ENTRIES AT A LATER DATE DUE TO NO N- CLEARANCE OF DEPOSITED CHEQUES AND THEREFORE, IN FA CT, THERE WERE NO CREDITS OF THE SAID AMOUNTS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS CREDITS OF RS.37,25,000/- HAVE BEEN SUBSTANTI ATED. 10.13 AS REGARDS ADDITION OF RS.1,00,000/- IT HAS B EEN OBSERVED THAT THE SAID CREDIT ON 25/10/2004 WAS ON ACCOUNT OF CANCELLATION OF DEMAND DRAFT PURCHASED O N 04/10/2004 BY ISSUING CHEQUES NO.436979 OF RS.1,00,166/- WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE BANK STATEM ENT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS CREDIT OF RS.1,00,000/- HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIATED. 10.14 AS ALREADY MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING PARA(L0.8) ON PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, IT IS NOTED THAT THE UNITED BANK OF INDIA HAS FILED A SUI T AGAINST M/S DEEGESH HOTELS PVT. LTD. FOR RECOVERY OF LOAN A MOUNTS. THE DEPARTMENT HAS CHALLENGED THE APPELLATE ORDERS OF THE THEN CIT(A)-I, NASHIK IN THE CASE OF M/S DEEGESH HO TELS PVT. LTD. FOR AY. 2005-06. THE APPEAL IS STILL PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT, PUNE. FROM THE ABOVE DISCU SSION IT IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE SOURCE OF RS. 5,53,50,00/- STANDS EXPLAINED IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT AND THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION OF TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPL AINED U/S 68 ESPECIALLY WHEN THE SAID LOANS WERE RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF M /S DEEGESH HOTELS PVT. LTD. WHICH IN TURN HAD RECEIVED ADVANCES TO THE TUNE OF MORE THAN RS.23 CRORES FROM UNITED BANK OF INDIA, NASHIK THROUGH ITS 94 CUSTOME RS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE/BOOKING OF FLATS. A PERUSAL OF COPI ES OF CERTAIN LETTERS SENT BY THE UNITED BANK OF INDIA, N ASHIK TO SHRI AMIT DIGVIJAY SINGH, DIRECTOR M/S DEEGESH HOTE LS PVT. LTD. REVEALS THAT THE BANK HAD SANCTIONED HOUSING L OANS TO 94 PERSONS IN AN IRREGULAR MANNER AND IN CONTRAVENT ION OF BANKS LAID DOWN RULES AND PROCEDURE. THE ENTIRE A MOUNT OF MORE THAN RS.23 CRORE WAS DISBURSED BY CREDITING THE SAME TO THE C/A. NO.100551 OF M/S DEEGESH HOTELS (P ) LTD. THE BANK HAS ASKED SHRI AMIT DIGVIJAY SINGH T O TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL THE ABOVE MENTIONED LOAN S HAVING OUTSTANDING BALANCE OF RS.23,37,50,483/- IN AGGREGA TE. THE BANK HAS ALSO ASKED SHRI AMIT DIGVIJAY SINGH TO COVER THE ENTIRE DUES IN THESE ACCOUNTS BY OFFERING COLLA TERAL SECURITIES TO COMMENSURATE VALUE BACKED BY HIS PERS ONAL GUARANTEE. IT IS FURTHER REVEALED THAT BANK WAS PR OPOSING 7 SOME SORT OF SCHEDULING OF REPAYMENT OF THE ABOVE LOAN. HENCE, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS GIVEN ABOVE, WHILE THE TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO SALE OF FLATS BY M/S DEEGESH HOTELS PVT . LTD. TO THESE 94 PERSONS MAY BE QUESTIONABLE AND PENDING BE FORE THE BANK AUTHORITIES AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES, IT IS A WELL ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT THE SAME INCOME C ANNOT BE TAXED TWICE. AS MENTIONED ABOVE, LOANS AMOUNTING TO RS.23 CRORES (APPROXIMATELY) RECEIVED BY M/S DEEGESH HOTE LS PVT. LTD. FROM UNITED BANK OF INDIA HAVE ALREADY BEEN TA XED BY THE AO IN ITS HANDS IN A.Y. 2005-06. ADDITION OF TH E ALL OR IN PART OF THE SAID ADVANCES IN THE HANDS OF THE APPEL LANT WILL AMOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION. 10.15 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, I AM OF THE CONS IDERED VIEW THAT THE CREDITS IN THE IMPUGNED BANK OF MAHARASHTR A CC A/C NO.15987 TO THE EXTENT OF RS.7,06,00,150/- ARE SUBS TANTIATED BY THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.7,06,00,150/- IS DELETED AND THE REMAINING ADDIT ION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.19,85,000/- IS CONFIRMED. GROUND NO.6 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. BEFORE US, LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHOR ITIES. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. D.R. AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RE CORD. WE FIND THAT LD.CIT(A) WHILE UPHOLDING THE ADDITION HAS NOTED THAT THOUGH ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT CASH DEPOSITS WERE MA DE OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT ON EARLIER OCCASIONS BUT SINCE THERE WAS A WIDE GAP BETWEEN THE CASH DEPOSIT S AND CASH WITHDRAWALS PARTICULARLY IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.14,10,000/-, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FOU ND ACCEPTABLE. WE FIND THAT THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE O F THE CASH DEPOSITS TO BE MADE OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM TH E SAME BANK ACCOUNT HAS NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE FALSE PARTICULARLY IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.14,10,000/- AND THE ONLY REASON F OR NOT ACCEPTING THE SUBMISSION WAS ON ACCOUNT OF GAP BETWEEN THE DAYS OF CASH DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWAL. SINCE THE SUBMISSION OF TH E ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.14,10,00 0/- HAS 8 NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE FALSE OR IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATE RIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE USED FOR SOME OTHER PURPOSES OR FOR ACQUISITION OF A SSETS AND WAS THEREFORE NOT AVAILABLE FOR DEPOSITING OF CASH, WE ARE O F THE VIEW THAT THE CREDIT FOR RS.14,10,000/- NEEDS TO BE GIVEN IN THE PRESENT CASE. WE THEREFORE RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5,75,000/- (RS.19,85,000/- - RS.14,10,000/-) AND THUS, THE ASSESSEE GETS PARTIAL RELIEF TO THAT EXTENT. THUS, THE GROUNDS 3 TO 5 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 6 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017. SD/- SD/- ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; ! DATED : 6 TH APRIL, 2017. YAMINI ( ) *!+, -,! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. 4. 5. 6. CIT(CENTRAL), NAGPUR. CIT(A)-12. #$% &&'(, * '(, / DR, ITAT, A PUNE; %+, - / GUARD FILE. ( / BY ORDER, // //// // TRUE COP // /// TRUE // //COPY // TRUE COPY // // // . /012 / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, * '( , / ITAT, PUNE.