Sankar Mondal, Nadia V. ITO, Ward-41(3), Kolkata, Nadia

ITA 2092/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4559 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 31-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Assessment record
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 133(6); 194C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI ABY. T. VARKEY, JM & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM ] I.T.A NO. 2092/KOL/20 16 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-1 3 SANKAR MONDAL -VS- ITO, WARD-41(3), NADI A [PAN: AENPM 9348 C ] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT : SHRI A. BISWAS, AD VOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI SALLONG YADEN, ADDL . CIT, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 10.07.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.08.2018 ORDER PER M.BALAGANESH, AM 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-12, KOLKATA [IN SHORT THE LD CI T(A)] IN APPEAL NO. 626/CIT(A)- 12/KOL./WD-41(3)/NADIA/2014-15 DATED 07.07.2016 AG AINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITO, WARD-41(3), NADIA [ IN SHORT THE LD AO] UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 05.02.2015 F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS STATED TO BE NOT PRESSED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 2 ITA NO.2092/KOL/2016 SANKAR MONDAL A.YR.2012-13 2 3. GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE W ITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 11,14,285/- MADE BY THE LD. AO TOWARDS BOGUS PURCHA SES IN RESPECT OF THREE PARTIES I.E. MARBEL POINT, RAMKRISHNA ENTERPRISE AND BINOY ENTER PRISE. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN DOING CONTRACT BUSINESS AND GENERAL ORDER SUPPLIES FOR RA ILWAYS. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 WAS FILED ON 06.09.2012 DEC LARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 6,83,788/-. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED ON DIFFERENT DATES AS PRESCRIBED IN THE ORDER SHEET FOR ASSESSMENT RECORDS, PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS, FILED REPLIES FOR THE QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUED BY THE L D. AO AND EXPLAINED THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED WERE ALSO CR OSS-CHECKED BY THE LD. AO ON A RANDOM BASIS. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR EARNED I NCOME FROM RAILWAY CONTRACT UNDER EASTERN RAILWAY, SEALDAH AND BANK INTEREST. THE LD. AO CALLED FOR DETAILS OF THE PURCHASES WHICH WERE DULY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. TH E ASSESSEE FILED LIST OF SUNDRY CREDITORS BEFORE THE LD. AO. FROM THE SAME, THE LD. AO SOUGHT TO VERIFY THE PURCHASES MADE FROM THREE PARTIES I.E. MARBLE POINT, RAMKRISH NA ENTERPRISE AND BINOY ENTERPRISE BY ISSUING NOTICES U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE RES PECTIVE PARTIES. ALL THE THREE PARTIES RESPONDED TO THE SAME BY STATING THAT THEY HAD NO P URCHASE TRANSACTION WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE DETAILS OF PURCHASES CLAIMED BY THE A SSESSEE THROUGH THESE THREE PARTIES AND THE FIGURES CONFIRMED BY THEM AND DIFFERENCE AR ISING THERE FROM ARE TABULATED AS UNDER: 3 ITA NO.2092/KOL/2016 SANKAR MONDAL A.YR.2012-13 3 THE LD. AO SHOW CAUSED THE ASSESSEE TO TREAT THE PU RCHASES MADE FROM ABOVE MENTIONED THREE PARTIES AS BOGUS PURCHASES. THE LD. AO OBSERVED IN HIS ORDER AS UNDER: A) REGARDING PURCHASES FROM MARBLE POINT, BRAJAGULI, N ADIA, THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE GOODS FROM MARBLE POINT. TAX INVOICES ISSUED BY MARBLE POINT WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. AO. WHEREAS MARBLE POI NT VIDE LETTER DATED 06.08.2014 RECEIVED BY THE LD. AO ON 12.08.2014 HAD SUBMITTED THAT THEY HAD NOT INCURRED ANY TRANSACTIONS BOTH CASH AND CREDIT WITH THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12. B) REGARDING PURCHASES FROM RAMAKRISHNA ENTERPRISE, TH E ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE TAX INVOICES AND ROAD CHALLANS ISSUED BY THE SAID S UPPLIER WHEREAS THE SAID SUPPLIER VIDE HIS LETTER DATED NIL RECEIVED BY THE LD. AO ON 25.09.2014 HAD STATED THAT HE HAD PURCHASED FROM THE ASSESSEE FOR RS. NIL DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12. C) REGARDING PURCHASES FROM BINOY ENTERPRISE, THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THE TAX INVOICES AND ROAD CHALLANS ISSUED BY THE SAID SUPPL IER. WHEREAS THE SAID SUPPLIER VIDE LETTER DATED NIL RECEIVED BY THE LD. AO ON 20. 10.2014 HAD STATED THAT HE HAD NO BUSINESS CONNECTION WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS UNKNOWN TO HIM. 5. THE LD. AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD N OT PRODUCED ANY ROAD CHALLANS AS STATED BY HIM IN HIS LETTER AND COPIES OF INVOICES SUBMITTED WERE ALSO NOT TAX INVOICES. INSTEAD THOSE LOOKED LIKE SELF-MADE MEM OS AS SEVERAL NUMBER OF SUCH MEMOS ARE UNSIGNED AND THOSE WHICH WERE SIGNED BY S ELLERS, SIGNATURES DO NOT TALLY WITH THOSE IN THE COMPLIANCES RECEIVED U/S 133(6) O F THE ACT FROM AFORESAID THREE MATERIAL SELLERS. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, THE LD. AO TREATED THE ENTIRE PURCHASES MADE FROM THESE THREE PARTIES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 11 ,14,285/- AS BOGUS PURCHASES AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 ITA NO.2092/KOL/2016 SANKAR MONDAL A.YR.2012-13 4 6. THE ASSESSEE PLEADED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT HE EXECUTES CONSTRUCTION WORK OF RAILWAYS AND THAT THE SAID EXECUTION CANNOT BE MADE WITHOUT ANY MATERIALS. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE PARTY-WISE MATERIAL PURCHASE S VIS--VIS DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE LD. AO AS IN THE FOLLOWING TABLE: THE ASSESSEE HAD EXECUTED WORK WITH MATERIALS ON BE HALF OF RAILWAYS AND THEREAFTER THE BILL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PASSED FOR PAYMEN T BY THE RAILWAYS. THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE LD. AO ON THE DEFECTS IN T HE MEMOS ISSUED BY THE SUPPLIERS WERE ADDRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FOLLOWING MAN NER: 5 ITA NO.2092/KOL/2016 SANKAR MONDAL A.YR.2012-13 5 THE ASSESSEE FURTHER PLEADED THAT THE LD. AO ACCORD INGLY ERRED IN NOT EXAMINING THE STOCK BOOKS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS OF THE SUPPLIERS TO EXAMINE THE VERACITY OF THEIR DENIAL OF SELLING ANY MATERIALS TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THOSE SUPPLIERS HAD ALSO STATED THAT THEY HAD NO PURCHASE ANY GOODS FROM THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF STATING THAT THEY HAD NOT SOLD ANY GOODS TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE LD. AO WITH R EGARD TO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND FOR VERIFICATION OF THE INVOICES S UBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AO DEPUTED HIS INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX TO VERIFY TH E GENUINENESS OF THESE BILLS. THE INSPECTOR SUBMITTED HIS REPORT BY STATING THAT ALL THE BILLS THAT WERE FILED WERE FALSE. THE LD. AO BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE REPORT OF HIS INSPECTOR REITERATED HIS FINDING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND JUSTIFIED THE A DDITION MADE TOWARDS THE BOGUS PURCHASE. THE ASSESSEE FILED OBJECTIONS TO THIS REM AND REPORT BY POINTING OUT VARIOUS DEFICIENCIES IN THE REPLIES GIVEN BY THE AFORESAID THREE SUPPLIERS IN THEIR CONFIRMATIONS AND ALSO STATED THAT THE ADDRESSES ME NTIONED IN THEIR REPLIES WAS EITHER INCORRECT OR DID NOT CONTAIN THE DETAILED ADDRESS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER PLEADED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE MATERIAL COMPONENT INCLUDIN G TRANSPORTATION OF THE RAILWAY 6 ITA NO.2092/KOL/2016 SANKAR MONDAL A.YR.2012-13 6 CONTRACT AS PER AUDITED ACCOUNTS WAS RS. 58,89,671/ - (42,44,021/- + 16,45,650/-) CONSTITUTING ABOUT 56.72% OF THE TURNOVER. IT WAS A RGUED THAT IF THE AFORESAID DISPUTED PURCHASES OF RS. 11,14,285/- IS ADDED TOGE THER WITH ITS RELATED TRANSPORTATION OF RS. 4,32,072/-, THEN THE MATERIAL COMPONENT INCLUDING LABOUR WOULD CONSTITUTE 41.82% OF THE TURNOVER, WHICH IS N OT PRACTICALLY POSSIBLE IN THE LINE OF THE BUSINESS IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED. T HE LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER OBSERVED THAT ALL THE THREE PARTIES HAD DENIED HAVING ANY TR ANSACTION WITH THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO. AGGRIE VED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS NOT IN DI SPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED INCOME ONLY FROM RAILWAYS TOWARDS CONTRAC T EARNINGS. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE RAILWAYS WOULD PASS THE BILL FOR PAYMENT O NLY AFTER EXAMINING WHETHER THE RELEVANT WORK HAS BEEN EXECUTED, FOR WHICH PURPOSES SUFFICIENT MATERIALS WERE INDEED REQUIRED TO BE UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE GROSS PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD IN CREASED FROM 13% TO 17.31%. IF THE BOGUS PURCHASE OF RS. 11,14,285/- IS ADDED, THE N GROSS PROFIT BECOMES 28% WHICH IS NOT POSSIBLE TO EARN IN THE BUSINESS IN WH ICH THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED. IN VIEW OF THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE T HAT HE HAD USED ALL THE MATERIALS ONLY IN THE EXECUTION OF WORK FOR RAILWAYS AND THAT THE CONTRACT EARNINGS WERE DERIVED ONLY FOR EARNINGS, WE HOLD THAT THE ADDITIO N OF GROSS PROFIT ON THE SUBJECT MENTIONED PURCHASES OF RS. 11,14,285/- WOULD MEET T HE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THE GROSS PROFIT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS 17.31%. HENCE, WE D IRECT THE LD. AO TO COMPUTE THE GROSS PROFIT OF 17.31% ON THE DISPUTED PURCHASES OF RS. 11,14,285/- AND MAKE ADDITION ACCORDINGLY. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7 ITA NO.2092/KOL/2016 SANKAR MONDAL A.YR.2012-13 7 8. GROUND NOS. 4 AND 5 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE W ITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 24,41,147/- TOWARDS LABOUR CHARGES U/S 40A(IA) OF T HE ACT. 9. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE ASSESSE E CLAIMED LABOUR CHARGES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 24,41,147/-. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE DETA ILS OF LABOUR PAYMENTS CONSISTING OF LIST OF LABOURERS TO WHOM MONEYS WERE PAID TOGET HER WITH THE MODE THEREON. THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT MADE ARE LISTED AS UNDER: THE LD. AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT OUT OF AFORESAID PAYM ENTS IN THE SUM OF RS. 23,71,547/- WAS PAID IN CASH IN VIOLATION OF PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THE LD. AO CONCLUDED THAT THE AFORESAID PAYMENTS WE RE MADE TO LABOUR CONTRACTORS WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE U/S 194C OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY PROCEEDED TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(IA) OF THE ACT TO THE TUN E OF RS. 24,41,147/-. THE LD. AO 8 ITA NO.2092/KOL/2016 SANKAR MONDAL A.YR.2012-13 8 ALSO MADE AN OBSERVATION IN HIS ORDER THAT IN ANY C ASE, A SUM OF RS. 23,71,547/- IS LIABLE TO BE DISALLOWED U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT FOR P AYMENTS MADE IN CASH. BEFORE THE LD CITA, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE BREA K UP OF THE AFORESAID PAYMENTS BY STATING THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO CERTAIN P ARTIES WHO HAD COLLECTED CERTAIN MONEYS ON BEHALF OF VARIOUS OTHER LABOURERS AND SIG NATURE OBTAINED FROM THEM; DETAILS OF PAYMENTS MADE TO VARIOUS PARTIES WHERE A NNUAL PAYMENT HAD NOT EXCEEDED RS 75,000 AND THEREBY OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT AND DETAILS OF PAYMENTS MADE IN EXCESS OF L IMITS PRESCRIBED U/S 194C OF THE ACT AS UNDER: A) PAYMENTS TO PARTIES WHICH ARE BELOW RS. 75,000, BEI NG THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 194C OF THE ACT: SL. NO. NAME OF THE LABOUR CONTRACTOR AMOUNT RECEIVED DURING F.Y. 2011-12 1. BILU HALDAR 53,000/- 2. TAMAL DAS 53,000/- 3. ANUP HALDER 35250/- 4. ROCKY MONDAL 55400/- 5. BABUL SHEIKH 53000/- 6. BADA NATH 32500/- 7. BALAI GHOSH 48600/- 8. BALAI SAHA 52600/- 9. SIRAZ SHEIKH 52600/- 10. ALAUDDIN MOLLA 52750/- 11. JUMMA SHEIKH 52600/- 12. RAFIQ ALI SHEIKH 53150/- 13. RANA HAZRA 52050/- 9 ITA NO.2092/KOL/2016 SANKAR MONDAL A.YR.2012-13 9 14. NURALI MOLLA 51700/- TOTAL 698200/- B) PAYMENTS MADE TO PARTIES WHO HAD COLLECTED WAGES ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL LABOURERS: SL. NO. NAME OF THE LABOUR CONTRACTOR AMOUNT RECEIVED DURING F.Y. 2011-12 1. BARO SHEIKH 176100/- 2. JAMAL ALI 128750/- 3. RAM DAS 107200/- 4. MANIRUL SHEIKH 106150/- 5. IDRIS ALI SHEIKH 105100/- 6. ROHIT DAS 104500/- 7. NASIRUL MOLLA 158400/- 8. MUSAFIR SHEIKH 264050/- 9. ROHIM SHEIKH 156200/- 10. ROHIT SHEIKH 103450/- 11. ISMAIL SHEIKH 100200/- 12. RANA SARDAR 100647/- TOTAL 1610747/- C) PAYMENTS MADE TO PARTIES IN EXCESS OF LIMITS PRESCR IBED UNDER 194C OF THE ACT: SL. NO. NAME OF THE LABOUR CONTRACTOR AMOUNT RECEIVED DURING F.Y. 2011-12 1. BOBI HAZRA 132200/- THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS FA LLING IN THE CATEGORY A AND B ABOVE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(IA) OF THE ACT, AS THERE WAS NO 10 ITA NO.2092/KOL/2016 SANKAR MONDAL A.YR.2012-13 10 VIOLATION OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE AGREED FOR DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO BOBI HAZRA IN THE SUM OF RS. 1, 32,200/-. THESE FACTS WERE SUBJECTED TO VERIFICATION BY THE LD. AO BY CALLING FOR REMAND. THE LD. AO IN THE REMAND REPORT AGREED TO THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. TH E LD. AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT ALSO STATED THAT THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF PROVISION OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT, SINCE THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO A SINGLE PERSON WHO IN TURN D ISTRIBUTED TO SEVERAL LABOURERS INCLUDED IN THE MUSTER ROLL ALONG WITH THEIR NAMES . HE HAD ALSO VERIFIED THE SAID MUSTER ROLLS AND WAS CONVINCED AND ALL THOSE INDIVIDUAL LA BOURERS WERE NEVER PAID OF ANY AMOUNT EXCEEDING RS. 20,000/- ON A SINGLE DAY. TO S UMMARIZE, THE LD. AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT STATED THAT ONLY ADDITION OF RS. 1,32 ,200/- IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT MADE TO BOBI HAZRA IS TO BE SUSTAINED FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(IA) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) COMPLETELY IGNORED THE REMAND REPORT AND UPH ELD THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO BY REPRODUCING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AGGRIEVED THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 10. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. FROM THE FACTS NARRATED ABOVE, WE FIND THAT ONLY A SUM OF RS. 1,32,200/- IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE T O BOBI HAZRA IS REQUIRED TO BE DISALLOWED U/S 40A(IA) OF THE ACT. THE OTHER FIGURE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE LD. AO IN THE REMAND REPORT. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENU E THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD SOUGHT TO ENHANCE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LD. AO. ACCORD INGLY, GROUND NOS. 4 AND 5 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 11. GROUND NO. 6 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REG ARD TO ADDITION MADE TOWARDS CASH DEPOSITS IN THE SUM OF RS. 2,12,500/-. 12. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE LD. A O OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CERTAIN CASH AND CHEQUE DEPOSITS IN BANK OF INDIA, CHAKDAHA IN A/C NO. 422120110000109 AS UNDER: 11 ITA NO.2092/KOL/2016 SANKAR MONDAL A.YR.2012-13 11 THE LD. AO ADDED THE ENTIRE DEPOSITS OF RS. 14,65,0 00/- IN THE ASSESSMENT. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE TOWARDS CHEQUE DEP OSITS IN THE SUM OF RS. 12,52,500/- AS THE SAME WERE PROPERLY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 2,12,500/-, THOUGH THERE WERE CASH WITHDRAWAL MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, IN VIEW OF THE LONG GAP BETWEEN THE DATE OF WITHDRAWAL AND THE DATE OF DEPOSIT OF CASH, THE LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE TOWARDS CASH DEPOSITS IN THE SUM OF RS. 2,12,500/-. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEF ORE US. 13. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE AFORESAID BANK ACCOUNT ON THE FOLLOWING DATE S: 10.09.2011 RS. 2,500/- 25.02.2012 RS. 2,10,000/- TOTAL RS. 2,12,500/- WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE WITHDRAWALS FROM HIS ANOTHER BANK ACCOUNT WHICH WAS ALREADY DISCLOSED VIDE A/C NO. 42212511000010 O N THE FOLLOWING DATES: 10.05.2011 RS. 2,50,000/- 22.10.2011 RS. 1,00,000/- 08.12.2011 RS. 2,00,000/- TOTAL RS. 5,50,000/- 12 ITA NO.2092/KOL/2016 SANKAR MONDAL A.YR.2012-13 12 WE FIND THAT THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE CASH HAS BEEN MA DE IN ONE BANK ACCOUNT ON EARLIER DATES AND THE SAME CASH HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN ANOTH ER BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AT A LATER DATE. HENCE THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT HAS BE EN CLEARLY EXPLAINED. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE CASH WITHDRAWAL ON EARLIER DATES HAD BEEN SPENT BY THE ASSESSEE ARE UTILIZED FOR SOME OTHER PURPOSES. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION MADE IN THE SUM OF RS. 2,12,500/- DESERVES TO BE DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, GRO UND NO. 6 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 01. 08.2018 SD/- SD/- [A.T. VARKEY] [ M.BALAGANESH ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 01.08.2018 SB, SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SANKAR MONDAL, 3, NO DURGANAGAR, NARKELBAGAN, CH AKDAHA, NADIA, PIN-741222. 2. ITO, WARD-41(3), NADIA, KURCHIPOTA LANE, P.O.-KR ISHNANAGAR, NADIA-741101. 3. C.I.T(A)- 4. C.I.T.- KOLKATA. 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVAT E SECRETARY HEAD OF OFFICE/D.D.O., ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHE S