Shri Om Prakash Patidar (HUF), Indore V. THE ITO 2(4), Indore

ITA 220/IND/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8431 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 27-12-2018
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 20-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: N D PATWA A RS
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Search and seizure; Tax effect
• Section: 143(3); 68; 69

Judgement Text

[ITA NO.220/IND/2017] [SHRI OM PRAKASH PATIDAR (HUF), INDORE] , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.220/IND/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 SHRI OM PRAKASH PATID AR (HUF), STATION ROAD RAU, INDORE / VS. ITO-2(4), INDORE ( APPELLANT ) ( REVENUE ) P.A. NO. AAAHO5903J APPELLANT BY SHRI ASHISH GOYAL & SHRI N.D. PATWA, A.RS RESPONDENT BY SHRI RAJIV JAIN, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 27.12.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 03.01.2019 / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER O F THE CIT(A)-I, INDORE DATED 23.1.2017 PERTAINING TO T HE [ITA NO.220/IND/2017] [SHRI OM PRAKASH PATIDAR (HUF), INDORE] 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF TRANSFER EXPENSES OF RS.2,00,000/- ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL L AND. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF CASH CREDITS AMOUNTING TO RS.17,51,000/-. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY OF T HE AFORESAID GROUNDS O F APPEAL. 2. THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE THAT ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.1.2014 DECLARIN G TOTAL INCOME OF RS.6,98,467/- AND AN AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.4.50,200/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 16.1.2016.THE A.O. WHILE FRAMI NG THE ASSESSMENT MADE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.75,35,438/-, INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES OF RS.23,90,602/- AND UNEXPLAINED CREDIT IN BANK ACCOUNT O F RS.17,51,000/-. HENCE, THE A.O. AFTER GIVING DEDUCT ION UNDER CHAPTER 16A ASSESSED INCOME AT RS.97,40,840/-. [ITA NO.220/IND/2017] [SHRI OM PRAKASH PATIDAR (HUF), INDORE] 3 THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO COMPUTED AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.3,00,000/- AGAINST THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME CLAIMED AT RS.4,50,200/-. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ACTION OF THE A.O., THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSID ERING THE SUBMISSIONS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. WHILE PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED DISALLOWAN CE OF TRANSFER EXPENSES OF RS.2,00,000/- AND THE ADDITION S MADE IN RESPECT OF THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCO UNT OF RS.17,51,000/-. REST OF THE ADDITIONS WERE DELET ED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE HAD CHALLENGED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. APPEAL OF THE REVENU E IN ITA NO.305/IND/2017 DATED 19.9.2018 WAS DISMISSED FOR LOW TAX EFFECT. THE PRESENT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE RE MAINS TO BE ADJUDICATED. GROUND NO.1 IS AGAINST ADDITION OF TRANSFER EXPENSES OF RS.2,00,000/- ON SALE OF AGRICULT URAL [ITA NO.220/IND/2017] [SHRI OM PRAKASH PATIDAR (HUF), INDORE] 4 LAND. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THIS GROUND WAS NOT PR ESSED, HENCE, DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 4. APROPOS TO GROUND NO.2, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE DETAILS HAVE BEEN FILED. LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS A S MADE IN THE WRITTEN SYNOPSIS. THE SUBMISSIONS OF TH E ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: S.NO. NAME AMOUNT REMARKS 1. SHRI JAGDISH PATIDAR 3,50,000 1) RECEIVED BY CHEQUE. BANK PASS BOOK. PB 115. A.O. WRONGLY QUOTED BANK ACCOUNT OF LALITA AT PG.15 OF HIS ORDER. 2) CONFIRMED IN STATEMENT U/S 131(1) BEFORE LD. A.O. PG.16 PARA (D) 3) IDENTITY PROOF ELECTION ID PB 113 4) CONFIRMATION PB 112(BACK) 5) SOURCE OF INCOME AGRICULTURE, LAND REVENUE RECORDS PRODUCED PB 113 6) REPAID ON 19.1.2013. PB 115 7) CASH WAS DEPOSITED BEFORE ISSUE OF CHEQUE TO ASSESSEE. HE WAS AGRICULTURIST AND HIS INCOME WAS IN CASH ONLY. HE WOULD EXPLAIN HIS SOURCE. CIT VS. JAI KUMAR BAKLIWAL 366 ITR 217 (RAJ.) ALSO ORISSA CORPN P LTD. 25 TAXMAN 80F (SC) [ITA NO.220/IND/2017] [SHRI OM PRAKASH PATIDAR (HUF), INDORE] 5 2 SMT. LALITA PATIDAR, W/O JAGDISH PATIDAR 3,51,000 1) RECEIVED BY CHEQUE. BANK PASS BOOK. PB 118. A.O. WRONGLY QUOTED BANK ACCOUNT OF JAGDISH AT PG.16 OF HIS ORDER. 2) IDENTITY PROOF ELECTION ID PB 116 (BACK) 3) CONFIRMATION PB 116. 4) SOURCE OF INCOME AGRICULTURE LAND REVENUE RECORDS PRODUCED PB 117 5) REPAID ON 19.1.2013 PB 118 (BACK) 6) CASH WAS DEPOSITED BEFORE ISSUE OF CHEQUE TO ASSESSEE. HE WAS AGRICULTURIST AND HIS INCOME WAS IN CASH ONLY. HE WOULD EXPLAIN HIS SOURCE. CIT VS. JAI KUMAR BAKLIWAL 366 ITR 217 (RAJ.) 3 SHRI VISHWAS PATIDAR S/O RADHESHYAM PATIDAR 3,00,000 1) RECEIVED BY CHEQUE, BANK PASS BOOK AT PG.17 PARA (C) 2) IDENTITY PROOF ELECTION ID PB 120 (BACK) 3) CONFIRMATION PB 119 4) SOURCE OF INCOME AGRICULTURE, LAND REVENUE RECORDS PRODUCED PB 117 5) REPAID ON 19.1.2013 PB 118 (BACK) 6) CASH WAS DEPOSITED BEFORE ISSUE OF CHEQUE TO ASSESSEE. HE WAS AGRICULTURIST AND HIS INCOME WAS IN CASH ONLY. HE WOULD EXPLAIN HIS SOURCE. CIT VS. JAI KUMAR BAKLIWAL 366 ITR 217 (RAJ.) 4. SHRI RADHEYSHYAM PATIDAR 3,00,000 1) RECEIVED BY CHEQUE. BANK PASS BOOK AT PG.19 2) CONFIRMATION PB 119 3) SOURCE OF INCOME AGRICULTURE LAND REVENUE RECORDS PRODUCED PB 122- 123 [ITA NO.220/IND/2017] [SHRI OM PRAKASH PATIDAR (HUF), INDORE] 6 4) REPAID ON 7.1.2013 AO PG.19 5) CASH WAS DEPOSITED BEFORE ISSUE OF CHEQUE TO ASSESSEE. HE WAS AGRICULTURIST AND HIS INCOME WAS IN CASH ONLY. HE WOULD EXPLAIN HIS SOURCE. HUGE CASH DEPOSITS BEFORE ISSUE OF CHEQUE TO ASSESSEE. HE WOULD EXPLAIN HIS SOURCE. CIT VS. JAI KUMAR BAKLIWAL 366 ITR 217 (RAJ.) 5 SHRI PRAHLAD PATIDAR 4,50,000 1) RECEIVED BY CHEQUE. BANK PASS BOOK AT PG.17 PARA (C) 2) IDENTITY PROOF ELECTION ID. 3) CONFIRMATION 4) SOURCE OF INCOME AGRICULTURE, LAND REVENUE RECORDS PRODUCED. 5) REPAID ON 19.1.2013 6) CASH WAS DEPOSITED BEFORE ISSUE OF CHEQUE TO ASSESSEE. HE WAS AGRICULTURIST AND HIS INCOME WAS IN CASH ONLY. HE WOULD EXPLAIN HIS SOURCE. HUGE CASH DEPOSITS BEFORE ISSUE OF CHEQUE TO ASSESSEE. HE WOULD EXPLAIN HIS SOURCE. CIT VS. JAI KUMAR BAKLIWAL 366 ITR 217 (RAJ.) 4. LD. D.R. OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS AND SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THIS [ITA NO.220/IND/2017] [SHRI OM PRAKASH PATIDAR (HUF), INDORE] 7 ADDITION. LD. CIT(A) DECIDED THIS ISSUE BY OBSERVIN G AS UNDER: 8.1 AS SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ADDITION CONSISTS OF FOLLOWING LOANS:- S.NO. NAME AMOUNT & DATE 1. SHRI JAGDISH PATIDAR RS.350000/- 12.9.2012 2. SMT. LALITA PATIDAR RS.351000/- 12.9.2012 3. SHRI VISHWAS PATIDAR RS.300000/- 12.9.2012 4. SHRI RADHESHYAM PATIDAR RS.300000/- 12.9.2012 5. SHRI PRAHLAD PATIDAR RS.450000/= 15.9.2012 TOTAL RS.1751000/- EACH OF THESE LOANS IS TAKEN UP HEREUNDER: 1. SHRI JAGDISH PATIDAR: AS NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE IDENTITY OF SH RI JAGDISH IS NOT IN DOUBT HOWEVER THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF SHRI JAGDISH IS NOT ESTABLISHED THOUGH HE HAS CONFIRMED HAVING GIVEN THE LOAN BUT T HE LOAN IS STATED TO BE OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF SHRI JAGDISH. THE A. O. HAS RIGHTLY NOTED THAT THE LAND HOLDING OF SHRI JAGDISH IS NOT ADEQUATE AN D INDEPENDENT TO JUSTY THE CASH DEPOSITED IN HIS ACCOUNT JUST PRIOR TO THE GIVING OF LOAN TO THE APPELLANT. THE CASH DEPOSITS ARE OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.49000/-, JUST BELOW RS.50000/-, AND THUS APPEAR TO BE INTENTIONALLY DON E WITH THE AIM OF AVOIDING THE QUOTING OF PAN AND SUBSEQUENT SCRUTINY . IT IS ALSO TO BE NOTED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE PLACED ON RECORD THAT THE DEPOSITS FLOW OUT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND EVEN IF IT IS SO CURIOU SLY ALL SALES ARE OF RS.49000/-. IN THE NORMAL COURSE THE AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS WOULD VARY AND IF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS IN HAND WITH THE DEPOSITOR THE SAME COULD HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED AT ONE GO. THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE DEPOSITOR PRODUCED DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE DEPOSIT PATTERN WAS A R EGULAR FEATURE IN THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI JAGDISH PATIDAR IS FOUND TO BE NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED AND HENCE THE A.O. WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE SA ME AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. [ITA NO.220/IND/2017] [SHRI OM PRAKASH PATIDAR (HUF), INDORE] 8 2. SMT. LALITA PATIDAR: SHRI IS THE WIFE OF SHRI JAGDISH PATIDAR AND THE FA CTS ARE IDENTICAL TO THOSE OF SHRI JAGDISH PATIDAR. HER CREDITWORTHINESS IS N OT ESTABLISHED AS HER AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDING AND INCOME IS NOT ADEQUAT E TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSITS IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, A.O WAS J USTIFIED IN TREATING THE SAID DEPOSIT AS ALSO NOT HAVING BEEN SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED. 3 & 4 SHRI VISHWAS PATIDAR & SHRI RADHYSHYAM PATIDA R: SHRI VISHWAS PATIDAR & SHRI RADHYSHYAM PATIDAR ARE SON AND FATHER AND ARE RELATED TO THE APPELLANT. AS NOTED BY THE A.O. HERE ALSO THE LOAN IS STATED TO BE OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME HOWEVER THE AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDING IS NOT COMMENSURATE WITH CASH DEPOSIT IN TH E ACCOUNTS WHICH ARE AGAIN OF RS.49000/- OR BELOW THAT AMOUNT JUST PRIOR TO THE LOAN GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT. SHRI VISHWAS HAS NO SEPARATE LAND I N HIS NAME. TOTAL LAND IN THE FAMILY IN NAME OF GRAND MOTHER UNCLE ETC. I S ONLY 16 BIGHAS AND THE DETAILS OF THE BANK ACOUNTS IN NAME OF UNCLE AND HI S FAMILY HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT IS HELD THAT THE LO AN FROM THE ABOVE TWO CREDITORS ARE ALSO NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED. 5. SHRI PRAHLAD PATIDAR: AS IN THE CASE OF THE ABOVE 4 DEPOSITORS IN THIS CA SE ALSO THERE ARE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE DEPOSITOR OF RS .49000/- OR BELOW, JUST BEFORE GIVING THE LOAN TO THE APPELLANT. THE DEPOS ITS ARE NOT COMMENSURATE WITH THE LAND HOLDING WHICH IS A MEAGRE 3 BIGHAS ON LY AND THE DEPOSITOR HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY OTHER DETAILS OF HIS FAMILY AN D AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IT IS OTHERWISE ALSO TOO MUCH OF A COINCIDENCE THAT ALL THE DEPOSITORS INSPITE OF SMALL LAND HOLDINGS HAD AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF A LMOST EQUIVALENT AMOUNT AND DEPOSITED THE SAME IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNT S IN A SUM OF RS.49000/- OR BELOW, AT THE SAME TIME. THE COINCID ENCE IS BEYOND HUMAN PROBABILITIES AND THE WHOLE THING IS ENGINEERED TO FACILITATE THE LOANS TO THE APPELLANT. THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION S IS THEREFORE NOT ESTABLISHED AND NONE OF THE DEPOSITORS ARE FOUND TO BE CREDIT WORTHY. 8.2 THE APPELLANT HAS ARGUED THAT THE CONFIRMATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED AND COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS HAVE ALSO BEEN FILED AND AS ALL LOANS ARE FROM AGRICULTURIST FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME NO ADVERSE INFERENCE NEED BE DRAWN. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO ARGUED THAT THE A.O. DID NOT ALLOW THE APPELLANT OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE DEPOSITORS. SUCH CONTENTION IS DEVOID OF MERITS AS FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS SEEN THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT DRAWN ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE BASED ON THE STATEMENTS RECOR DED. MERE FILING OF CONFIRMATIONS PER SE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE TRANSAC TION AS GENUINE. 8.3 THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PR OCEEDINGS HAS CONTENDED THAT THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADDING THE ABOVE LOANS UNDER [ITA NO.220/IND/2017] [SHRI OM PRAKASH PATIDAR (HUF), INDORE] 9 SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AS THERE WAS NO CREDIT IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT AS THE APPELLANT WAS NOT MAINTAINING ANY BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS AND ON THE BASIS OF ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. FROM THE RECORD IT IS SEEN THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT HAS FILED BALANCE SHEET, TRIAL BALANCE, L EDGER ACCOUNTS CASH BOOK AND UCO BANK SAVINGS A/C BOOK. THE LAST NAMED ACCO UNT SHOWS THE RECEIPT OF MONEY AS LOAN FROM ALL THE ABOVE CASH CREDITORS AND THE UNSECURED LOANS OUTSTANDING AT THE END OF THE YEAR ARE SEEN IN THE BALANCE SHEET. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE CONTENTION THAT SECTION 68 CANNOT BE INVOKED AS NO BOOKS ARE MAINTAINED IS FOUND TO BE WITHOUT MERITS. IN THIS CONTEXT IT IS RELEVANT TO NOTE THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VISP (P) LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 265 ITR 202 MP WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW. LEARNED COUNSEL, APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACIN G RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT REPORTED IN BALADIN R AM V. CIT (1969) 71 ITR 427 AND THE DECISIONS OF THE MUMBAI AND ALLAHABAD H IGH COURTS REPORTED IN CIT V. BHAICHAND H. GANDHI (1983) 141 ITR 67 AND SU NDAR LAL JAIN V. CIT (1979) 117 ITR 316, RESPECTIVELY, CONTENDED, THAT S ECTION 68 OF THE ACT CAN BE INVOKED ONLY, WHEN, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASS ESSEE SHOW THE CASH ENTRY AND NOT OTHERWISE. WE ARE AFRAID, SUCH A NARROW AND RESTRICTED INTERP RETATION OF THE PROVISIONS, CONTAINED IN SECTION 68 WAS ADVANCED BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE, CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IF THE LIA BILITY SHOWN IN THE SAID ACCOUNT WHICH, IS FOUND TO BE BOGUS AND IN THE ABSE NCE OF ANY PLAUSIBLE AND REASONABLE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE N, CERTAINLY, THE AMOUNT CAN BE ADDED TOWARDS THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE AND BRO UGHT TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELIANCE PLACED ON THE DECISIONS, IN OUR CONSI DERED OPINION, DO NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D ARE DISTINGUISHABLE. 8.4 IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO AS POINTED OUT ABOVE T HE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THE COPIES OF BALANCE SHEET LEDGER ACCOUN TS BANK BOOK CASH BOOK ETC AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT AND THE RECEIPT IS DU LY REFLECTED IN THESE ACCOUNTS AND HENCE A.O. WAS JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE ITAT BANGALORE IN THE CASE OF P.V. AJAY NARAYAN VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (1997) 57 TTJ 159 (BANG) HAS HELD AS UN DER: IT IS FURTHER CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE UNDER SECTION 68 BECAUSE TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN MAINTAINING REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT IS CONTEN DED THAT ONLY IN CASES WHERE REGULAR BOOKS ARE MAINTAINED THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 68 WOULD BE APPLICABLE. BUT THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT MISQUOTING OF A SECTION IS NOT FATAL TO THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CA SE LAW: [ITA NO.220/IND/2017] [SHRI OM PRAKASH PATIDAR (HUF), INDORE] 10 ITR 529 (BOM.) (II) STEEL CONTAINERS LT.D V. COMMISSIONER (1978) 1 12 ITR 995 (CAL.) AND (III) D.M. NETERWALLA V. COMMISSIONER (1980) 122 IT R 880 (BOM.) THE ABOVE DECISIONS POINT OUT TO ONE THING THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS POWER TO ALLOW THE REVENUE TO RAISE A GROUND FOR THE FIRST T IME BEFORE IT. IT IS ALSO HELD THEREIN THAT THE TRIBUNAL CAN UPHOLD DISALLOWANCE U NDER ANOTHER SECTION. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS WE HOLD THAT MENTI ONING OF A WRONG SECTION IS NOT FATAL TO MAKING AN ASSESSMENT UNDER ANY OTHER S ECTION. 8.5 ADMITTEDLY THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED THE AMOUN T IN QUESTION AND THE AMOUNT IS DULY DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT AND THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE SAID DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND HENCE THE INVESTMENT IN THE BA NK DEPOSIT IS NOT FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED AND HENCE THE ADDITION CAN BE CONFIRMED U/S 69 OF THE ACT. CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS IN TOTALITY THE ADDITION IS CONFIRMED IN APPEAL. THIS GROUND OF THE APPELLANT IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. 6. FROM THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A), IT IS EVIDENT TH AT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND SATISFACTORY ON THE BASIS THAT BEFORE ADVANCING MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE, THERE WERE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE CREDIT ORS. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) HAS ADMITTED THE FACTUM OF EARNING OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THEREFORE, INFERENCE THAT THE EN TIRE AMOUNT WAS NOT BELONGING TO THE CREDITORS WOULD BE FALLACIOUS. WE THEREFORE, LOOKING INTO THE FACTS AND M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORDS, HEREBY DELETE 50% OF THE ADDITIO N OF [ITA NO.220/IND/2017] [SHRI OM PRAKASH PATIDAR (HUF), INDORE] 11 RS.17,51,000/-. THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL I S PARTLY ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLO WED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03 . 01.2019. SD/- (MANISH BORAD) SD/- (KUL BHARAT) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER INDORE; DATED : 03/01/2019 VG/SPS COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/GUAR D FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INDORE