Manoj Kumar Poddar, Hooghly V. I.T.O Wd -2(3),Asansol, Asansol

ITA 2062/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 99694 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 03-07-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R P NAG
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business income; Source of fund
• Section: 133(6); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH: KOLKATA [BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM ] I.T.A NO. 20 6 2 /KOL/201 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 7 - 0 8 MANOJ KUMAR PODDAR VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WD - 2(3), ASANSOL (PAN:ALIPP4980F) ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 15 .0 7 .2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06 . 0 8 . 2015 FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI SOMNATH GHOSH, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI R. P. NAG, JCIT ORDER THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF CIT (A) , ASANSOL IN APPEAL NO. 96 /CIT(A) /ASL/WARD - 2(3)/ASL/2009 - 10 DATED 2 6 . 0 4 .201 3 . ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ITO, WARD - 2(3), ASANSOL U/S. 1 43(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7 - 0 8 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 2 3 . 12 .20 0 9 . 2. THE FIRST ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF UNSECURED LOANS OF FOLLOWING AMOUNTS: I) RS. 3,00,000/ - FROM SMT. RINKU PODDAR, II) RS.2,50,000/ - FROM SMT. SHASHI DEVI PODDAR AND III) RS. 49,000/ - FROM SHRI KANHAI LAL PODDAR FOR THIS, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING THREE GROUNDS: 1. FOR THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ASANSOL ACTED LAWFULLY IN UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS OF RS. 3,00,000/ - , RS. 2,50,00 0 / - A ND RS.49,000/ - WHICH WERE THE AMOUNT OF LOANS RECEIVED FROM SRNT. RINKU PODDAR, SHASHI DEVI PODDAR AND KANHAIYA LAL PODDAR RESPECTIVELY MADE BY THE LD. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3), ASANSOL SPECIOUSLY TREATING THEM AS ALLEGEDLY UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS WI THIN THE PROVINCE OF S. 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT ADDUCING ANY ADVERSE EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND HIS ALLEGED FINDINGS ON THAT BEHALF ARE ALTOGETHER ARBITRARY, UNWARRANTED AND PERVERSE. 2. FOR THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). AS ANSOL MISCONSTRUED THE POSITION IN LAW IN ILLEGALLY UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.5,99,000/ - MADE UNDER THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF S. 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE LD. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), ASANSOL WITHOUT CONSIDERING THA T THE EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE TRUE NATURE AND SOURCES OF LOANS IN THE INSTANT CASE WERE CONCLUSIVELY PROVED BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT AND THE PURPORTED FINDING OF DISBELIEVING THEIR GENUINITY ON EXTRANEOUS ISSUES NOT GERMANE TO THE SUBJECT OF DISPUTE IS COMPLETELY UNFOUNDED, UNJUSTIFIED AND UNTENABLE IN LAW. 2 ITA NO. 20 6 2 /K/201 3 MANOJ KUMAR PODDAR AY 200 7 - 08 3. FOR THAT ON A PROPER CONSPECTUS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD, PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING, THE IDENTITIES OF THE LOAN CREDITORS, THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS BEING PROVED BY THE APPELLANT, THE PURPORTED FINDING OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ASANSOL UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS. 5,99,000/ - MADE BY THE LD. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), ASANSOL ON THE SPECIOUS ALLEGATI ON OF UNPROVED CASH CREDIT BY REJECTING SUCH IMMACULATE EVIDENCE ADDUCED ON RECORD IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL , ILLEGITIMATE AND INFIRM IN LAW. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PROPRIETOR OF A FIRM UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. RELATIONS , W HICH DEALS IN DISTRIBUTORSHIP BUSINESS OF RELIANCE MOBILE CARDS. THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN UNSECURED LOANS FROM SMT. RINKU PODDAR AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,00,000/ - , SMT. SHASHI DEVI PODDAR RS.2,50,000 / - AND KANHAI LAL PODDAR AMOUNTING TO RS.49,000/ - . THE AO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS IN RESPECT TO THESE CASH CREDITORS. THE AO ALSO ISSUED NOTICES U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THESE CASH CR EDITORS AND ASKED TO FURNISH THE FOLLOWING DETAILS: I) IDENTITY PROOF BEARING SIGNATURE, II) WHETHER ANY LOAN WAS PAID TO THE ABOVE PERSON, IF YES, THEN FURNISH THE DETAILS OF LOAN PAID I.E. YEAR IN WHICH THE LOAN WAS GIVEN, MODE AND DATE OF PAYMENT. III) DETAILS OF FRESH LOAN GIVEN AND LOAN SQUARED OFF DURING THE F.Y. 2006 - 07. IV) PLEASE MENTION THE MODE OF PAYMENT MADE AND RECEIVED AND ENCLOSE THE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT FROM WHICH THE LOAN WAS GIVEN. V) RATE OF INTEREST AT WHICH THE LOAN WAS GIVEN. VI) DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUND GENERATED FOR GIVING THE LOAN ON THAT DATE AND COPY OF YOUR IT RETURN ALONG WITH BALANCE SHEET FOR THE AY 2007 - 08, 2006 - 07 AND 2005 - 06. VII) RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ASSESSEE. VIII) SUBMIT LOAN CONFIRMATION CERT IFICATE AS ON 31.03.2007. THE AO NOTICED THAT THE FIRST CASH CREDITOR SMT. RINKU PODDAR IS WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE , WHO IN REPLY TO THE NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT, STATED THAT THIS LOAN WAS ADVANCED BY CHEQUE NO.0000731751 FROM HER SAVING S BANK A/C. NO.071 696 MAINTAINED WITH UCO BANK, BARAKAR DATED 03.10.2006. SHE ALSO SUBMITTED BANK PASS BOOK. SHE ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THE ABOVE LOAN WAS GIVEN OUT OF HER AVAILABLE FUNDS AS ON THAT DATE IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. SHE ALSO ENCLOSED COPIES OF HER I. T RETURNS FOR AY 2005 - 06 AND 2006 - 07 ALONG WITH ACCOUNTS. IN RESPECT TO RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2007 - 08, IT WAS STATED BY HER THAT SHE DID NOT FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME BECAUSE HER TOTAL INCOME IN THAT YEAR WAS BELOW 3 ITA NO. 20 6 2 /K/201 3 MANOJ KUMAR PODDAR AY 200 7 - 08 TAXABLE LIMITS. THE AO NOTICED FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT THAT THIS WAS OPENED ON 27.09.2006 AND NO TRANSACTION HAS BEEN MADE IN THIS ACCOUNT FROM 27.09.2006 TO 03.07.2009 EXCEPT THIS LOAN TRANSACTION. ACCORDING TO HIM, A CASH OF RS. 3,00,000/ - HAS BEEN DEPOSITED ON 03.10.2006 AND ON THAT VERY DATE THIS AMOUNT WAS TRANSFERRED TO ASSESSEE S ACCOUNT. THE AO REQUIRED HER TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THIS DEPOSIT. FOR THAT PURPOSE, THE AO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE SMT. RINKU PODDAR AND SHE WAS FINALLY PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO ON 09.12.2009 AND STATEMENT WAS RECOR DED. THERE WERE CERTAIN INCONSISTENCIES IN THE STATEMENT LIKE SHE DENIED GIVING ANY LOAN TO SHRI MANOJ KUMAR PODDAR, THE ASSESSEE AND MOREOVER, SHE ADMITTED THAT THERE IS NO BIG AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN HER ACCOUNT. IN VIEW OF THESE IN CONSISTENCIES AND THE FA CT THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS.300000/ - WAS DEPOSITED ON THE VERY SAME DATE AND ISSUED CHEQUE TO ASSESSEE IMMEDIATELY FOR WHICH THERE WAS NO SOURCE TO EXPLAIN THIS CREDIT ENTRY , HENCE , THE AO TREATED THIS AMOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED BECAUSE THE SOURCE OF T HIS DEPOSI T WAS NOT PROVED. 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), WHO ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF AO BY HOLDING THAT IN VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE IN HAND , THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS IS NOT PROVED. AGGRIEVED, NOW ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E TRIBUNAL. 5. I HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. BEFORE ME, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE APART FROM OTHER EVIDENCE STATED THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 3,00,000/ - IS A DEPOSIT OUT OF CASH FLOW STATEMENT. WHEN THIS WAS POINTED OUT TO HIM, HE STATED THAT HE IS READY TO FILE THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ENTIRE PAPER BOOK CONSISTS OF PAGES 1 TO 78 AND NOTICED THAT THE ONLY EVIDENCE WHICH WERE PRODUCED BEFORE AO LIKE I. T. RETURNS, ACCOUNTS OF THE CREDITOR, COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND BANK STATEMENT, WHICH ARE NOW AVAILABLE IN THIS PAPER BOOK. I FIND THAT THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT WAS NEVER FILED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND EVEN NOW BEFORE TRIBUNAL. WHEN A QUERY WAS PUT TO LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT WHAT IS THE IMMEDIATE SOURCE OF THIS CASH CREDIT, HE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. SR. DR SHRI R. P. NAG, JCIT HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES I T IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO PROVE THE IMMEDIATE SOURCE OF THE TRANSACTION FOR THE REASON THAT THE CREDITOR IS HAVING 4 ITA NO. 20 6 2 /K/201 3 MANOJ KUMAR PODDAR AY 200 7 - 08 BANK ACCOUNT NO. 071696 OF UCO BANK, BARAKAR WHERE AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,00,000/ - WAS DEPOSITED ON 03.10.2006 AND ON THAT VERY SA ME DAY THIS AMOUNT WAS GIVEN AS LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE I.E. HER HUSBAND. APART FROM THIS AMOUNT OF RS.3,00,000/ - THERE ARE SMALL ENTR IES VARIES FROM RS. 10,000/ - TO RS.20,000/ - IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THERE WAS NEVER A BALANCE OF MORE THAN RS.20,000 TO RS.30,000/ - IN THIS BANK ACCOUNT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THIS TRANSACTION. HENCE, I CONFIRM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE ADDITION IS CON FIRMED. 7. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.2,50,000/ - RECEIVED FROM SMT. SHASHI DEVI PODDAR . THE AO NOTICED THAT THE SECOND CASH CREDITOR SMT. SHASHI DEVI PODDAR I S AUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN REPLY TO THE NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT, SHE REPLIED THAT THIS LOAN WAS GIVEN BY CHEQUE BEARING NO.000181920 FROM HER BANK A/C. NO. CD56188 OF UCO BANK, BARAKAR. SHE ALSO SUBMITTED BANK PASS BOOK. SHE ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THE ABOVE LOAN WAS GIVEN OUT OF HER AVAILABLE FUNDS AS ON THAT DATE IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. SHE ALSO ENCLOSED COPIES OF HER I. T RETURNS FOR AY 2005 - 06 TO 2007 - 08. SHE HAD SHOWN INCOME U/S. 44AF OF THE ACT FROM SALE OF CONSUMER GOODS. THE AO NOTICED FROM TH E BANK ACCOUNT THAT A CASH OF RS.2,48,000/ - HAS BEEN DEPOSITED ON 03.10.2006 AND ON THAT VERY SAME DATE AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,50,000/ - WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THIS DEPOSIT. FOR THAT PURPOSE, THE AO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE SMT. SHASHI DEVI PODDAR AND SHE WAS FINALLY PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO ON 09.12.2009 AND STATEMENT WAS RECORDED. THERE WERE CERTAIN INCONSISTENCIES IN THE STATEMENT LIKE SHE STATED THIS TRANSACTION IS NOT IN MY KNOWLEDGE. IT MAY BE POSSIBLE THAT MY HUSBAND HAD DEPOSITED MONEY IN MY ACCOUNT ON THAT DATE. BUT THAT MONEY IS NOT MINE . IN VIEW OF THESE IN CONSISTENCIES, THE AO TREATED THIS AMOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED BECAUSE THE SOURCE OF THIS DEPOSIT WAS NOT PROVED. 8 . AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), WHO ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF AO BY HOLDING THAT IN VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE IN HAND THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS IS NOT PROVED. AGGRIEVED, NOW ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL. 5 ITA NO. 20 6 2 /K/201 3 MANOJ KUMAR PODDAR AY 200 7 - 08 9 . I HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. BEFORE ME, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE APART FROM OTHER EVIDENCE STATED THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 2 , 5 0,000/ - IS A DEPOSIT OUT OF CASH IN HAND WITH SHASHI DEVI PODDAR. I HAVE GONE THROU GH THE ENTIRE PAPER BOOK CONSISTING OF PAGES 1 TO 78 AND NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO VARIOUS DOCUMENTS LIKE INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR AY 2005 - 06 TO 2007 - 08 ALONG WITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME, BANK STATEMENT, COPY OF PAN CARD, STATEMENT OF A FFAIRS, WHICH ARE NOW AVAILABLE IN THIS PAPER BOOK. ALSO SHASHI DEVI PODDAR IS SOLE PROPRIETOR OF M/S. SAKAMBARI SALES AGENCY, BARAKAR AND THE I. T. RETURN FOR AY 2005 - 06 TO 2007 - 08 HAVE BEEN FILED SHOWING BUSINESS INCOME. THE LOAN OF RS.2,50,000/ - HAS B EEN GIVEN FROM CURRENT ACCOUNT NO. 56188 OF UCO BANK, BARAKAR IN NAME OF SAKAMBARI SALES AGENCY. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CURRENT ACCOUNT BANK STATEMENT WHEREIN VARIOUS ENTRIES OF CASH DEPOSITS AND CHEQUES ISSUED ARE THERE FROM 24 TH APRIL, 2006 TO 3 RD OCTOB ER, 2006 AND ON VARIOUS DATES THE BANK BALANCE WAS MORE THAN RS.20,000/ - AND SOMETIMES EVEN RS. 1 LAC. IT MEANS THAT THERE WAS REGULAR CASH FLOW IN THE BANK ACCOUNT FROM WHICH THE LOAN OF RS.2,50,000/ - WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE I.E. HER NEPHEW. IN VIEW O F THE ABOVE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT SHASHI DEVI PODDAR WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT BASIS AND FUNDS TO GIVE LOAN OF RS.2,50,000/ - TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, I HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, THIS IS ACCEPTED AS GENUINE AND I DELETE THE ADDITION. 1 0 . THE NEXT CASH CREDIT OF RS.49,000/ - RECEIVED FROM SHRI KANHAIYA LAL PODDAR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO EXPLAINED THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS ADVANCED BY THE CASH CREDITOR BY WAY OF DEMAND DRAFT NO. 812125 PURCHASED FROM SBI, B. B. GANGULI STREET, KOLKATA AMOUNTING TO RS.49,000/ - . ACCORDING TO AO, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RESPONDED TO THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT. HENCE, HE TREATED THIS LOAN AS UNEXPLAINED. BUT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE CREDITOR IS AN EXISTING INCOME TAX ASSESS EE AND HE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS.1,10,250/ - AS PER P&L ACCOUNT FOR AY 2007 - 08. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PRODUCED THE I. T. RETURNS, P&L ACCOUNT AND COPY OF DEMAND DRAFT BY WHICH THIS AMOUNT WAS ADVANCED. BUT THE AO HAS NOT ACCEPTED THESE DOCUMENTS AS GENUINE AND LOAN WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), WHO OBSERVED THAT THE CONFIRMATION OF LOAN IS NOT GENUINE AND ACCORDINGLY, THE AO IS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE LOAN IS UNPROVED ONE. AGGR IEVED, NOW ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL. 6 ITA NO. 20 6 2 /K/201 3 MANOJ KUMAR PODDAR AY 200 7 - 08 1 1 . I HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. I FIND THAT THIS IS A MERELY SMALL AMOUNT OF RS.49,000/ - ADVANCED OUT OF CURRENT YEAR S INCOME. THE CURRENT YEAR S INCOME OF THE LOAN CREDITOR IS ABOUT RS.1,10,250/ - , WHICH IS SUFFICIENT TO MEET THIS LOAN AMOUNT. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE LOAN WAS ADVANCED ON 23.12.2006 ALMOST AT THE END OF THE YEAR. PRESUMING THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE LOAN CREDITOR AND AMOU NT WAS GIVEN BY WAY OF DEMAND DRAFT, I HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, THIS IS ACCEPTED AS GENUINE AND I DELETE THE SAME. 1 2 . THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE AMOUNT AS LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWAL AMOUNTING TO RS.30,000/ - . 1 3 . BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE AO ESTIMATED THE DRAWING OF THE FAMILY AT RS. 5, 0 00/ - PER MONTH AND HE ESTIMATED THE PERSONAL EXPENSES AS OF THE FAMILY AT RS.60,000/ - BY GIVING REBATE OF RS.30,000/ - AS DECLARED BY ASSESSEE AS HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS . HE TREATED THE BALANCE RS.30,000/ - AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), WHO ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF AO WITHOUT GIVING ANY FINDING ON FACTS. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CAME IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL. 1 4 . I HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. BEFORE ME ASSESSEE FILED THE DETAILS OF OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS WITHDRAWALS LIKE ASSESSEE S WIFE SMT. RINKU PODDAR WHEREIN SHE HAS DECL ARED HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS AT RS.21,600/ - AND SMT. SHASHI DEVI PODDAR AMOUNTING TO RS.48,000/ - . IF THESE TWO WITHDRAWALS ARE ALSO TREATED FOR FAMILY WITHDRAWALS THEN IT WILL BE MORE THAN THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED BY THE AO AT RS.60,000/ - . HENCE, THERE IS NO N EED TO MAKE ANY SEPARATE ADDITION OF RS.60,000/ - . THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 1 5 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED . 1 6 . ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06.08.2015 SD/ - (MAHAVIR SINGH) J UDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 6 TH AUGUST , 201 5 JD.(SR.P.S.) 7 ITA NO. 20 6 2 /K/201 3 MANOJ KUMAR PODDAR AY 200 7 - 08 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . A PPELLANT SHRI MANOJ KUMAR PODDAR, C/O SHRI SOMNATH GHOSH, ADVOCATE, SEVEN BROTHERS LODGE, P.O. BUROSHIBTALA, P.S. CHINSURAH, DIST, HOOGHLY, PIN - 712105 . 2 RESPONDENT ITO, WARD - 2(3) , ASANSOL . 3 . THE CIT (A), ASANSOL 4. 5. CIT, ASANSOL . DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR .