Baldev Singh S/O Gajjan Singh, Tarn Taran V. The Income Tax Officer, Tarn Taran

ITA 178/ASR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3263 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (International Taxation) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: T S AURORA
• Keywords: Gift; Peak credit; Rule of consistency
• Section: 143(3); 250; 68; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (SMC) BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 178/ASR/2016 AS SESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 BALDEV SINGH S/O GAJJAN SINGH, H.NO. 22 VPO, SHERON, TARN-TARAN [PAN: BPPPS 7783M] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), TARN TARAN (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. T. S. AURORA (ADV. ) RESPONDENT BY: SH. CHARAN DASS (D.R.) DATE OF HEARING: 13.02.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21.02.2019 ORDER PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGITATING THE ORD ER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, AMRITSAR ('CIT(A)' FOR S HORT) DATED 29.01.2016, PARTLY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTESTING HIS ASSES SMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT' HEREINAFTER) DATED 15.03.2 013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2010-11. 2. THE ASSESSEE, ENGAGED IN FINANCE BUSINESS, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR ON 10.11.2010 ADMITTING AN INCOME OF RS.1,68,900, BESIDES AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.1 LAC. THE ASSESSEE WAS F OUND DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO HAVE DEPOSITED CASH IN HIS BANK ACCO UNT WITH ICICI BANK (RS.AT RS. 95.95 LACS) AND HDFC BANK (AT RS.13.30 LACS) DURING THE YEAR. IN EXPLANATION, HE ITA NO. 178/ASR/2016 (AY 2010-11) BALDEV SINGH V. ITO 2 PRODUCED HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, FURTHER STATING THAT IN A BID TO SHOW A HIGHER TURNOVER IN ACCOUNT, HE HAD RE-DEPOSITED CASH WITHD RAWN FROM BANK, ENTRIES IN RESPECT OF WHICH APPEAR IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, VI Z., THE CASH BOOK, LEDGER, AS PRODUCED. FURTHER, THE MONEY RETURNED FROM THE BORR OWERS WAS ALSO, ON RECEIPT, DEPOSITED IN BANK, WHICH AGAIN REFLECTED IN THE REG ULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE WAS, ACCORDINGLY, ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE PEA K BALANCE (OF RS.21.55 LACS) IN HIS ICICI BANK DURING THE YEAR (ON 29.01.2010), AND TOWARD WHICH THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT: CAPITAL OF THE PROPRIETOR 5,10,889/- AGRL. INCOME 1,00,000/- NET PROFIT 1,68,900/- SUNDRY CREDITORS 2,26,611/- SUNDRY CREDITORS (SQ. UP) 6,85,900/- OPEN. BALANCE (ICICI) 1,90,896/- TOTAL: 18,83,196/- THE SAME DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE ASSESSING OFF ICER (AO), AS THE SAID DETAIL WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. AS A GAINST CAPITAL, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE ADVANCES, WHICH WERE YIELDING HIM INTEREST INCOME. THE SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR RS.2.27 LACS AS WELL AS THOSE STATED TO BE SQUA RED UP (RS.6.86 LACS), WERE, AGAIN, UNPROVED, IN-AS-MUCH AS MERE FURNISHING OF NAMES WA S NOT SUFFICIENT, AND THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW THE CAPACITY OF THE L ENDERS AS WELL. HE, ACCORDINGLY, REGARDED THE ENTIRE PEAK BALANCE AS UNEXPLAINED. TH E HDFC BANK ACCOUNT HAVING BEEN OPENED ONLY ON 02.02.2010, THE PEAK CREDIT FOR BOTH THE BANK ACCOUNTS, HE OBSERVED, WOULD AMOUNT TO THE SAME, I.E., RS.21,54, 656/-, WHICH WAS BROUGHT TO TAX AFTER DEDUCTING THE OPENING BALANCE IN THE ICICI BA NK ACCOUNT (RS.1,90,896), I.E., ITA NO. 178/ASR/2016 (AY 2010-11) BALDEV SINGH V. ITO 3 AT RS.19,63,790 . THE EXPLANATION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS ALSO N OT ACCEPTED, AND ASSESSED AS REGULAR INCOME, I.E., SEPARATELY. IN AP PEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED RELIEF OF RS.6,85,900/- TOWARD SQUARED-UP CREDITORS, REDUC ING THE ADDITION TO RS.10,86,994 (I.E., 19,63,790 6,85,900 1,90,896 ). THE ADDITION OF RS.1 LAC WAS ALSO CONFIRMED IN-AS-MUCH AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT O WN ANY AGRICULTURAL LAND. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL. 3. BEFORE ME, THE THRUST OF THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS THAT NO ADDITION HAD BEEN, UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) FOR AY 2009-10, THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, PLACING THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER DATED 23.12.2011 FOR THAT YEAR ON RECORD. ONLY AN ADDITION OF RS.40,000, I.E., TOWARD LOW HOUSE-HOLD WITHDRAWALS, WAS MADE, ALSO ACCEPTING AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.80,500, I.E., AS DISCLOSED FOR THAT YEAR. THE PRINCIPAL OF CONSISTEN CY WOULD THEREFORE PRECLUDE THE ADDITION FOR THE CURRENT YEAR, AND FOR WHICH RELIAN CE WAS PLACED BY HIM ON THE DECISION IN CIT V. LEADER BALLS LTD. [2007] 295 ITR 273 (P&H) AND CIT V. LAGAN KALA UPVAN [2003] 259 ITR 489 (DEL). THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE (DR), SH. CHARAN DASS, WOULD SUBMIT THAT THE CASH DEPOSIT S FOR AY 2009-10 WERE TO THE TUNE OF RS.29.75 LACS ONLY, WHILE THAT FOR THE CURR ENT YEAR ARE ADMITTEDLY AT AN AGGREGATE OF RS.109.25 LACS; THE TWO SITUATIONS ARE CLEARLY NOT COMPARABLE. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATERI AL ON RECORD. 4.1 THE PRINCIPAL ISSUE IS QUA THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE YEAR, FOR WHICH HE IS REQUIRED TO FURNIS H A SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE NATURE AND SOURCE THEREOF, LEST THE S AME BE REGARDED AS HIS INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR. AS EXPLAINED IN CHUHARMAL V. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 250 (SC), THE EXPRESSION INCOME IN SECTION 69A OF THE ACT HAD A WIDE MEANING WHICH MEANT ANYTHING WHICH CAME IN OR A RESULTED IN GAIN. FURTH ER, SECTIONS 69 AND OTHERS ARE ITA NO. 178/ASR/2016 (AY 2010-11) BALDEV SINGH V. ITO 4 BASED SECTION 110 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT, WHICH EMBODI ES A SALUTARY PRINCIPLE OF COMMON LAW JURISPRUDENCE, VIZ., WHERE A PERSON WAS FOUND IN POSSESSION OF ANY THING THE ONUS OF PROVING THAT HE WAS NOT ITS OWNE R WAS ON THAT PERSON. THIS PRINCIPLE COULD BE ATTRACTED TO A SET OF CIRCUMSTAN CES THAT SATISFIED ITS CONDITIONS AND WAS APPLICABLE TO TAXATION PROCEEDINGS. THE SAT ISFACTORY EXPLANATION OF DEPOSITS FOR AY 2009-10, WOULD NOT IMPLY AN EXPLANA TION FOR DEPOSITS DURING THE CURRENT YEAR AS WELL, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE BEING SAT ISFACTORY EXPLAINED. FOR AY 2009-10, IN FACT, THE AO HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FI NDING AT PARA 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, I.E., CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.29.75 LACS WITH BAN KS HAVE BEEN VERIFIED FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DE CISIONS ON PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY WOULD THEREFORE HAVE NO APPLICATION IN THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE. IN FACT, THE ASSESEE IS NOT BEING REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE DEPOSITS DURING THE YEAR, BUT ONLY THE BANK BALANCE AS ON A PARTICULAR DATE, I.E. , WITH REFERENCE TO THE AVAILABLE SOURCES, AND WHICH HE SHOULD ORDINARILY BE ABLE TO WITH REFERENCE TO HIS ACCOUNTS. 4.2 COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, I SHALL TAKE UP THE ISSUE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME FIRST. IF, AS STATED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SH. AURORA, THE INCOME IS IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEES FAMILY, HIS GRANDFATHER, IT IS THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE L AND-OWNER, I.E., HIS GRANDFATHER, AND NOT OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO IS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE T AKEN IT ON RENT. THE TRANSFER TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE GRANDFATHER, ASSUMING SO, WOULD , IN THAT CASE, BE BY WAY OF GIFT FROM HIM, I.E., A CAPITAL TRANSFER. THE QUESTION OF IT BEING AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE ASSESSEES HANDS COULD ARISE ONLY WHERE IT IS IN RE SPECT OF AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS CARRIED ON AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNED OR RENTED BY HIM , TOWARD WHICH THERE IS NO CLAIM, MUCH LESS DOCUMENT ON RECORD. THERE IS IN FA CT NO CONTENTION TO THAT EFFECT, OR SHOWN TO BE SO, BEFORE THE AO OR EVEN THE LD. CI T(A). ON THE CONTRARY, THE ASSESSEE ADMITS IT AS HIS INCOME, WHICH IS INCONSIS TENT WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ITA NO. 178/ASR/2016 (AY 2010-11) BALDEV SINGH V. ITO 5 SAME BEING THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGRICULTURAL INC OME OF A RELATIVE, DISTRIBUTED AMONG FAMILY MEMBERS. THERE IS, FURTHER, NO DISCUSS ION IN THE MATTER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2009-10 NOR, CONSEQUENTLY, ANY FINDING BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HOW, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FINDING, COULD THE PRINC IPLE OF CONSISTENCY BE INVOKED ? THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT OWN OR HAS RENTED ANY AGRICULTURAL LAND DURING THE CURRENT YEAR IS ADMITT ED, BEING CONFIRMED BY SH. AURORA, ONLY IN RESPONSE TO WHICH QUERY HE EXPLAINE D DURING HEARING OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND TO BE BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEES GRANDFATHER. AT THE SAME TIME, HOWEVER, IT COULD WELL BE THAT, THOUGH NOT FINDING MENTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION OF IT BEING A DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE FAMILY MEMBERS, HAD FOUN D ACCEPTANCE BY THE AO FOR AY 2009-10, THOUGH HE PERHAPS, BECAUSE OF TAX IMPAC T, REGARDS IT AS THE ASSESSEES AGRICULTURAL INCOME, I.E., AS DISCLOSED. WHERE SO, THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE SAID EXPLANATION, CONSIDERING THAT THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND FURTHER THAT THE AMOUNT IS NOMINAL, DEPOSITED IN THE REGULA R COURSE AT THE TIME THE TWO HARVESTS ARE SOLD, SHOULD FIND ACCEPTANCE FOR THE C URRENT YEAR AS WELL. IF, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED AN EXPLANATION AS TO THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME BEING IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, STATED TO BE 25-30 AC RES, OWNED BY THE ASSESSEES GRANDFATHER, AS CLAIMED BEFORE ME, IT IS THIS THAT IS TO BE REGARDED AS THE BASIS FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR AGRICULT URAL INCOME FOR THAT YEAR AND, LIKEWISE, ADOPTED FOR THE CURRENT YEAR AS WELL. TWO , BEING ESSENTIALLY IN THE NATURE OF A GIFT, THE SAME CANNOT BE REGARDED AS HIS INCOM E, AGRICULTURAL OR OTHERWISE. IF, HOWEVER, IT IS NOT SO, I.E., THERE IS NO SUCH EXPLA NATION ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2009-10, THE SAME IS TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME. H ERE, IT MAY BE CLARIFIED THAT WHILE STATING SO I AM CONSCIOUS THAT, AND WITHOUT D OUBT, SUCH A CONTENTION WOULD BE THE FIRST THING THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD, IN THAT CASE, MAKE BEFORE THE AO IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE CURRENT YEAR, WHICH HAS NOT BEE N SHOWN TO BE SO. THE FORE- ITA NO. 178/ASR/2016 (AY 2010-11) BALDEV SINGH V. ITO 6 GOING, HOWEVER, IS ONLY BY GIVING THE ASSESSEE A BE NEFIT OF DOUBT. FURTHER, IT NEEDS TO BE EMPHASIZED THAT THE ISSUE IS BEING DECIDED NO T ON FIRST PRINCIPLES, BUT ONLY ON THE BASIS OF A REASONABLE EXPLANATION QUA FACTS, HAVING BEEN FURNISHED IN THE PAST, WHICH HAS FOUND ACCEPTANCE BY THE REVENUE. FURTHER STILL, WHERE THERE IS NO SUCH EXPLANATION FOR AY 2009-10, THERE IS NO BASIS OR MA TERIAL ON RECORD TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THE AMOUNT BE REGARDED AS AGR ICULTURAL INCOME; THE CONTENTION NOW RAISED, I.E., OF IT BEING A DISTRIBUTION OF INC OME, BEING ONLY A BALD ASSERTION. THAT IS, THERE IS NO VIEW TAKEN (FOR AY 2009-10) FO R THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL TO APPLY, EVEN AS THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT. THE AO SHALL DECIDE ACCORDINGLY, CLEARLY STATING THE FACTS. A BETTER COURSE, ADMITTEDLY, WOULD BE TO CALL FOR THE ASSESSMENT FIL E (FOR AY 2009-10) OR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO, AND DECIDE THE SAME BY THE TRIB UNAL. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE TIME AND COST INVOLVED, IT IS CONSIDERED EXPEDIENT TO REQUIRE THE AO TO ISSUE A FINDING ON CONSULTING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD FOR AY 2009-10. I DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 4.3 THE NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO THE DEPOSIT OF RS.21.55 LACS, PREDOMINANTLY IN CASH, FOUND CREDITED IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCO UNT ON 29.01.2010. THE ASSESSEES CASE, IN SUBSTANCE, IS OF HAVING MAINTAI NED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, WHICH WERE NOT FOUND FAULT WITH BY THE REVENUE. THAT IS, THE ENTRIES IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE YEAR AND, THUS, OF THE BALANCE AS ON A P ARTICULAR DATE (DURING THE YEAR). IN THIS REGARD, MY FIRST OBSERVATION IS THAT THAT BEIN G THE CASE, WHY COULD NOT THE ASSESSEE DRAW UP HIS BALANCE-SHEET (OR TRIAL BALANC E) AS ON THAT DATE, WHICH WOULD AT ONCE GIVE THE SOURCE AND APPLICATION OF FUNDS. T HE ASSESSEE, DESPITE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IS UNABLE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF THE SO URCE/S OF RS.21.55 LACS, EVEN AS, IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, HE WOULD HAVE, APART FROM BANK BALA NCE/S, OTHER ASSETS AS WELL (ON ITA NO. 178/ASR/2016 (AY 2010-11) BALDEV SINGH V. ITO 7 THAT DATE). SH. AURORA, ON BEING ASKED, EXPRESSED I NABILITY TO FURNISH THE SAID BALANCE-SHEET OR TRIAL BALANCE (A LISTING OF ALL TH E ACCOUNT BALANCES IN THE LEDGER), THOUGH WOULD SHOW THE LEDGER MAINTAINED BY THE ASSE SSEE. THE ASSESSEE, HE EXPLAINED, IS NO LONGER IN BUSINESS AND IN DIRE FIN ANCIAL STRAITS; WITHOUT THE SERVICES OF AN ACCOUNTANT, AND WOULD THEREFORE NOT BE ABLE T O COMPLY WITH THE SAID DIRECTION BY THE BENCH. FOR THE SAME REASON, HE WOULD SUBMIT, THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED BY REMITTING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO. THE VERY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE ASSESSEE SEEKS TO REL Y UPON IN EXPLANATION OF THE CASH DEPOSIT/S, THUS, ARE BEING ARGUED FOR BEIN G OVERLOOKED OR IGNORED OR BEING NOT REFERABLE IN EXPLANATION OF THE SAME! THE MATTE R, NEVERTHELESS, HAS TO BE RESOLVED; REMITTING IT BACK WOULD ALSO REQUIRE AN A CTIVE COOPERATION ON THE ASSESSEES PART SO AS TO LEAD TO ANY IMPROVEMENT IN HIS CASE. I AM UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES CONSTRAINED TO WORKOUT THE SHORTFALL IN THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION TOWARD THE BALANCE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. IN THIS REG ARD, IN MY VIEW, THE ASSESSEE NEEDS TO BE, AGAIN, GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF DOUBT WITH REGARD TO THE SUNDRY CREDITORS APPEARING IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THIS IS FOR THE REASON THAT AT NO STAGE WAS HE CALLED UPON TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDITS APPEARING THEREIN FOR SECTION 68 TO APPLY OR BE INVOKED. FURTHER, ALLOWING CREDIT FO R THE FULL VALUE OF THE OPENING CAPITAL AS ON 01.4.2009 (RS.5,10,889), WOULD AMOUNT TO GIVING CREDIT FOR THE OPENING BANK BALANCE (RS.1,90,896) TWICE IN-AS-MUCH AS THE SAID AMOUNT WOULD STAND TO FORM PART OF THE ASSESSEES OPENING CAPITA L. I, ACCORDINGLY, ESTIMATE, THE SAID SHORTFALL, AS UNDER: ICICI BANK AMT.(RS.) REMARKS 1 (A) BALANCE: (AS ON 29.01.2010) 21,54,686 (B) LESS: OPENING BALANCE (01.4.2009) 1,90,896 (C) NET ACCRETION DURING THE YEAR 19,63,790 (A) (B) ITA NO. 178/ASR/2016 (AY 2010-11) BALDEV SINGH V. ITO 8 2. AGRICULTURE/OTHER INCOME/GIFT 1,00,000 3 (A) PROFIT DURING THE YEAR 1,93,340 AS PER P&L ACCOUNT (B) PROFIT UP TO 29.01.2010 (1,61,112) ON PRO RATA BASIS 4 (A) SUNDRY CREDITORS (6,93,340) (SQD. UP) (B) SUNDRY CREDITORS (2,26,611) (9,12,511) 5 (A) PROPRIETORS CAPITAL 5,10,889 (OPENING BALANCE) (B) LESS: REPRESENTED BY BANK BALANCE 1,90,896 (3,19,993) (SEE NOTE 2) (AS ON 01.04.2009) 6. HOUSE-HOLD WITHDRAWALS (50,000) (@ RS.5000 PER MONTH) 5,30,174 (1) THE FIGURES IN BRACKETS REPRESENT NEGATIVE (CRE DIT) FIGURES, WHILE THAT WITHOUT REPRESENT POSITIVE (DEBIT) BALANCES. (2) NOT DEDUCTING THE OPENING BALANCE OF BANK BALAN CE FROM THE OPENING CAPITAL WOULD AMOUNT TO CLAIMING DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF OPENING BANK BALANCE TWICE, RESULTING IN THE SAME MISTAKE AS COMMITTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN CALC ULATING THE UNEXPLAINED BANK DEPOSIT AT RS.10,86,994. THE REDUCTION OF THE ENTIRE OPENING CAPITAL WOULD I MPLY ALLOWING CREDIT FOR THE OPENING BALANCE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AS WELL, AND WH ICH AMOUNT HAS ALREADY BEEN DEDUCTED IN COMPUTING THE NET ACCRETION, WHICH IS T O BE EXPLAINED. ALTERNATIVELY, THE OPENING BANK BALANCE MAY NOT BE REDUCED FROM BO TH THE BANK BALANCE (AS ON 29.01.2010) AS WELL AS FROM THE OPENING CAPITAL. FU RTHER, AS THE ADVANCES AS ON 29.01.2010, I.E., THE PEAK VALUE DATE, CANNOT BE TA KEN AS NIL, THE SAME ARE TAKEN AT A MODEST FIGURE OF RS.50,000. THIS IS SO AS, AS IT AP PEARS, THE INCREASE IN THE BANK BALANCE, APART FROM ON ACCOUNT OF CREDITORS AND CAP ITAL, WOULD ALSO BE ON ACCOUNT OF REDUCTION IN THE VOLUME OF THE ADVANCES. HOUSE-H OLD WITHDRAWAL IS AGAIN TAKEN AT A REASONABLE SUM, IN KEEPING WITH THAT FOR THE P RECEDING YEAR. THE SHORTFALL, THUS, IS WORKED AT RS. 5,80,174, OR AT RS. 5.80 LAC S . THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED FOR ADDITION. I DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO. 178/ASR/2016 (AY 2010-11) BALDEV SINGH V. ITO 9 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON FEBRUARY 21, 2019 SD/- (SANJAY ARORA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 21.02.2019 /GP/SR. PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELLANT: BALDEV SINGH S/O GAJJAN SING H, H.NO. 22 VPO, SHERON, TARN TARAN (2) THE RESPONDENT: INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1( 3), TARN TARAN. (3) THE CIT(APPEALS)-1, AMRITSAR (4) THE CIT CONCERNED (5) THE SR. DR, I.T.A.T. TRUE COPY BY ORDER