The ITO, Ward-6(3), Surat V. Shri Naginbhai Narsinhbhai Patel, Surat

ITA 2268/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1914 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 06-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 08-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUPAMA SINGLA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJESH M UPADHYAYA
• Keywords: Peak credit

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2268/AHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3), SURAT. VS. SHRI NAGINBHAI NARSINBHAI PATEL, 5, MATA FALIA, AT & POST HAZIRA ROAD TAL: CHORYASI, SURAT 395 011. [PAN NO. ANRPP 8980 C] ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : MS. ANUPAMA SINGLA, SR.D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJESH M. UPADHYAYA, A.R. DATE OF HEARING 20/11/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20/12/2018 O R D E R PER MS. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.05.2014 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- I, SURAT [LD. CIT(A) IN SHORT] FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2010-11 ARISING OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'T HE ACT') DATED 26.03.2013 PASSED BY THE ITO, WARD - 6(3), SURAT WITH THE FOLLOWING GROU NDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO O N ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME DEPOSITED/CREDITED IN UNDISCLOSE D THREE BANK ACCOUNTS TO THE TUNE OF RS.72,75,116/-. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RELYING ON THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSES SEE WHICH WAS NOT MADE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE AO., IN CONTRAVENTION OF RULE 46A, WITHOUT EVEN REMANDING IT TO THE AO. - 2 - ITA NO.2268/A/14 ITO VS. SHRI NAGINBHAI N. PATEL ASST.YEAR 2010-11 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.2, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT APPRECIA TED THE FACT THAT IN THE CHART SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A),(REPRODUCED AT PAGE NO.15 OF HIS ORDER), IN RESPECT OF TWO ENTRIES THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN NARRATION-BABUBHAI N.PATEL. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT EXPLAINED AS TO HOW AND WHY THE MONEY WAS RECEIVED FROM SHRI. BABUBHAI N. PATEL. IN RESPECT O F THREE ENTRIES THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN NARRATION AREA RMP COMMISSION, H OWEVER, THE SOURCE IS NOT EXPLAINED. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE BEFORE THE AO WAS THE ASSESSMENT OF INDIVIDUAL. THE AO HAD PROVED THAT TH E BANK ACCOUNTS IN QUESTION BELONGED TO THE INDIVIDUAL AND NOT THE HUF . 2. THE BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE CASE IS THIS THAT THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.07.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCO ME AT RS.1,62,920/-; THE SOURCE OF INCOME SHOWN IN THE SAID RETURN WAS FROM HOUSE PROP ERTY AND OTHER SOURCES. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, IT REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSE E MAINTAINS THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK AT HAJIRA, SURAT IN WHICH, CAS H TOTALING OF RS.21,00,000/- WAS DEPOSITED. IT FURTHER REVEALED THAT CASH WAS DEPOSI TED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ACCOUNTS LAYING WITH SYNDICATE BANK AND UNION BANK AS WELL. THE ASSESSEE WHILE EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF SAID CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.21,00,000/- MENTI ONED THAT HE WAS HAVING CASH IN HAND OF RS.8,00,000/- AS ON 01.04.2009. IT WAS THE STATE MENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ALL THESE THREE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE BELONG TO HUF OF ASSESSEE. UPON EXAMINATION OF FACTS, THE AO OBSERVED THAT NO RETURN, HOWEVER, WAS FILED BY THE SAID HUF FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION OR THEREAFTER ALSO. THE SAID BANK ACC OUNTS WERE ALSO NOT BELONGED TO THE HUF IN TERMS OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE SAID B ANKS BEFORE THE LEARNED AO. THE LEARNED AO WAS PRIMA FACIE OF THE OPINION THAT THOSE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE UNDISC LOSED BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE KARTA OF HU F AS A RESULT WHEREOF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF TOTAL SUM OF CRE DIT SIDE OF THE SAID THREE BANK ACCOUNTS AGGREGATING TO RS.86,98,929/-; THIS PARTICULAR AMOU NT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RECTIFIED BY THE LEARNED AO OF RS.72,75,115/- AS SOON AS THE SAME WA S POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS FURTHER ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF FDRS LYING WITH SYDICATE BANK - 3 - ITA NO.2268/A/14 ITO VS. SHRI NAGINBHAI N. PATEL ASST.YEAR 2010-11 AMOUNTING TO RS.49,000/- AND RS.6,00,000/-. IN REPL Y TO THE SAID NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND LOCATED AT VIL LAGE HAZIRA WAS SOLD BY HUF OF ASSESSEE AND THE SUM OF RS.24,24,148/- SO RECEIVED WAS DEPOSITED IN THE SAID ACCOUNT OF SYDICATE BANK. SUBSEQUENTLY, A FD OF RS.24,00,000/- WAS MADE BY WITHDRAWING THE SAME FROM THE SAID ACCOUNT, WHICH WAS AGAIN ENCHASED AND RE-DEPOSITED. IT WAS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ALL THE THREE BANK ACCOUNTS BELONG TO HUF WHICH WAS DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE SAID HUF AND RECORDING OF T HOSE ACCOUNTS WERE ALSO DONE THEREIN. FURTHER THAT, THE DEPOSIT REGARDING FDS TO THE TUNE OF RS.49,000/- SINCE REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE HUF, THE SAME ARE A LSO EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LEARNED AO CAME TO A FINDING, THE LAND WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE OR ACQUIRED BY THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER WAS BELONGED TO FOUR CO- OWNERS INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE AND NOT THE HUF OF AS SESSEE. FURTHER THAT, THE BANK ACCOUNTS ALSO RELATE TO THE ASSESSEE AS INDIVIDUAL AND NOT AS KARTA OF HUF, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE SIGNATURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY IN THE OPENING FORM OF THOSE ACCOUNTS. SINCE NO RETURN OF INCOME W AS FILED BY THE SAID HUF FOR A.Y. 2010-11, THE QUESTION OF DISCLOSING OF THESE ACCOUN TS DOES NOT AND CANNOT ARISE AT ALL AS ALSO OBSERVED BY THE LEARNED AO. FROM THE WORKING O F CAPITAL GAIN FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2009-10, IT APPEARS THAT THE SAI D IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WAS SOLD AT RS.17,59,954/- AND THE HUF HAS ALSO CLAIMED DEDUCTI ON OF RS.15,93,480/- TO THE SAID CAPITAL GAIN TAX PAYABLE. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED AO, THE FUND OF RS.1,66,474/- WAS ONLY AVAILABLE WITH THE SAID HUF AS ON 31.03.2009 A ND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SHOW SUFFICIENT FUND TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF CASH DE POSITS OF RS.24,00,000/- AND RS.8,00,000/-. THE LEARNED AO THOUGH ACCEPTED THE S OURCE OF RS.6,00,000/- TOWARDS INVESTMENT ON FDS LYING WITH SYNDICATE BANK BUT DID NOT ACCEPT THE REMAINING SUM OF RS.49,000/- AS EXPLAINED. A TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.73 ,63,945/- WAS ULTIMATELY MADE BY THE - 4 - ITA NO.2268/A/14 ITO VS. SHRI NAGINBHAI N. PATEL ASST.YEAR 2010-11 LEARNED AO IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST WHI CH AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN RELIEF PARTLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.72,75,116/-. THE ADDITION AGGREGATING TO RS.39,829/- TOWARDS INTERES T AMOUNT ON FD AND RS.49000/- WAS, HOWEVER, CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL, TH E LEARNED AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE BANK ACCOUNTS INCLUDING THE FD ACCOUNTS BE LONG TO HUF WHO IS ALSO ASSESSED BY THE SAME AO. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IF ANY ADDIT ION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE IT HAS TO BE MADE IN THE CASE OF HUF. THE LEARNED AR ALSO BROUGH T THIS PARTICULAR FACT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL THAT THE ASSESSEES LAND WA S ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND COMPENSATION OF RS.24,24,148/- AND RS.17,59,954/- W AS RECEIVED, WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT LYING WITH THE SYNDICATE BANK AND UNION BANK OF INDIA RESPECTIVELY. THUS AMOUNTS WERE CIRCULATED IN THE FORM OF WITHDRA WALS AND RE-DEPOSIT AND LEARNED AO HAS TOTALED ONLY DEPOSITS AND MADE ADDITION THEREOF . THE WITHDRAWALS OUT OF THOSE DEPOSITS WERE NOT AT ALL TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION B Y THE LEARNED AO AS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR BEFORE US. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED AR, THE WORKING MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS THE PEAK BALANCE OF DEPOSITS AND W ITHDRAWALS TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OF THREE BANK ACCOUNTS COMPUTED AT RS.37,14,938/-. SUC H PEAK BALANCE IS COVERED BY THE AMOUNTS OF COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ALSO SUBMITTED BY HIM. SINCE EACH AND EVERY CREDIT ENTRY WAS DULY EXPLAINED BY THE AS SESSEE THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN TERMS OF SECTION 68/69 OF THE ACT AN D IN THE EVENT, THE ACCOUNTS IS UNEXPLAINED THEN THE PEAK CREDIT CAN BE ADDED TO TH E TOTAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE MATTER BEFORE US. HE FURTHER URGED THAT SINCE ALL THE CREDIT ENTRIES IN ALL THE THREE BANK ACCOUN TS HAVE BEEN DULY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING THE SOURCE OF EACH AND EVERY CRE DIT ENTRY MADE THEREIN NO ADDITION, - 5 - ITA NO.2268/A/14 ITO VS. SHRI NAGINBHAI N. PATEL ASST.YEAR 2010-11 WHATSOEVER IS PERMISSIBLE. FURTHER THAT, THE COMPEN SATION AMOUNTS SO RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED DURING THE ASSESSME NT PROCEEDING FOR A.Y. 2009-10 AND THEREFORE ADDITION ON THE SAME ACCOUNTS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WOULD BE NOTHING BUT DOUBLE TAXATION, WHICH IS EITHER NOT PERMISSIBL E IN LAW. THE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y. 2009-10 HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED BY T HE LEARNED AR BEFORE US. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARI NG FOR THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES, WE HAVE PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RE CORD, WE HAVE FURTHER PERUSED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS IMPUGNED. IT APPEAR S THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT LYING WITH THE THRE E BANK ACCOUNTS WHICH WAS DULY BEEN TAKEN CARE OF BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS IT APPEARS A T PAGE 15 OF THE ORDER IMPUGNED. THE SAME IS REPRODUCED FOR READY REFERENCE: DATE EXPLANATION AMOUNT 13.05.2009 SYNDICATE BANK FD (14/10/08) 24,08,383/ - 13.05.2009 SYNDICATE BANK FD 80,409/ - 29.09.2009 SB A/C INTEREST 115/- 31.10.2009 SB A/C INTEREST 575/- EXPLANATION FOR CREDITS IN INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK SB A/C NO. 192 WITH HAJIRA BRANCH DATE EXPLANATION AMOUNT 05.08.2009 SB A/C INTEREST 25/- 20.01.2009 RMP COMM. 250/- 01.02.2010 IOB FD (8/12) 6,02,261/ - 05.02.2010 BANK FD INTEREST 9,437/- 05.03.2010 RMP COMM. 7,578/- 05.03.2010 RMP COMM. 3,000/- 16.03.2010 RMP COMM. 750/ - EXPLANATION FOR CREDITS IN UNION BANK OF INDIA SB A /C NO. 53504 WITH NANPURA BRANCH DATE EXPLANATION AMOUNT 08.08.2009 SB A/C INTEREST 4,940/- - 6 - ITA NO.2268/A/14 ITO VS. SHRI NAGINBHAI N. PATEL ASST.YEAR 2010-11 12.08.2009 SYNDICATE BANK FD (21/5) 6,03,328/- 12.08.2009 SYNDICATE BANK FD (21/5) 6,06,328/ - 03.09.2009 BABUBHAI N. PATEL 4,24,800/- 03.09.2009 BABUBHAI N. PATEL 65,410/- 29.10.2009 UNION BANK FD (30/6) 1,01,729/- 29.10.2009 UNION BANK FD (30/6) 1,01,729/ - 29.10.2009 UNION BANK FD (30/6) 1,01,729/- 02.02.2010 SB A/C INTEREST 4,135/- ON THE BASIS OF SUCH CALCULATION WHILE CONCLUDING T HE ORDER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE THE LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF CR EDIT ENTRIES AS ABOVE, NO QUESTION ARISES FOR TREATING THEM UNACCOUNTED OR, F OR THAT MATTER, MAKING ADDITIONS. THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS EXPLAINED B Y APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED BY AO ALSO. HE HAS SIMPLY TAKEN IN TO ACCOUNT ALL THE CREDIT ENTRIES OF THREE BANK ACCOUNTS AND TOTALED THEM AS UNE XPLAINED SUM OF MONEY. HE HAS NOT GONE ON EACH AND EVERY ENTRY TO ESTABLISH THAT THEY ARE UNEXPLAINED. HE HAS SUMMARILY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE WHOLE OF THE BANK ACCOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED AND UNDISCLOSED WHICH IS NOT A CORRECT METHOD TO EXAMIN E THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS. THE GENESIS OF FUNDS WHICH HAVE BEEN CIRCULAT ED IN THE FORM OF DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS HAS ALREADY BEEN E XPLAINED BY APPELLANT AS THE AMOUNTS OF RS.24,24,148/- AND RS.17,59,954/- RECEI VED AS COMPENSATION AGAINST' ACQUISITION OF LAND BY GOVERNMENT. THESE TWO AMOU NTS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AND ACCEPTED BY AO ALSO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER . IN THIS REGARD, APPELLANT HAS FILED THE CERTIFICATE FROM ESSAR LTD. , ON BEHALF OF WHICH (AND WAS ACQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT, CERTIFYING THAT THE AMO UNT OF RS.24,24,146/- WAS GIVEN TO APPELLANT THROUGH CHEQUE NO. 079 254 DATED 06.10,2008 WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN SYNDICATE BANK. FOR RS.17,49,954/- , DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT OF UNION BANK OF INDIA ON 10.09.2008, AO HIMSELF HAS DISCUSSED (AS RS.17,59,954/-) AT PAGE NO.17 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER W HEREIN AFTER COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE, HAS MENTIONED THAT THE FUNDS OF RS.1,66,474/- ONLY WERE AVAILABLE TO APPELLANT. THOUGH THE APPELLANT, DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ADMITTED THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S.54 OF RS. 15,93,480/- AS INVESTMENT IN ANOTHER IMMOVABLE PROP ERTY, HAS WRONGLY BEEN CLAIMED AND THE WHOLE OF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 17,49,95 4/- WAS AVAILABLE WITH HIM FOR CIRCULATION. THE CLAIM OF APPELLANT IS EVIDENT FROM THE BANK STATEMENT ALSO WHEREIN NO INVESTMENT IN ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY TO THE VALUE OF RS. 15,93,480/- HAS BEEN REFLECTED. THIS INVESTMENT IS NOT REFLECTE D IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF HUF ALSO, THE COPY OF WHICH IS ENCLOSED WITH THE ASSESS MENT ORDER AS 'ANNEXURE- B'. - 7 - ITA NO.2268/A/14 ITO VS. SHRI NAGINBHAI N. PATEL ASST.YEAR 2010-11 THUS, THE APPELLANT WAS HAVING FUNDS OF RS. 41,74,0 91/- (RS. 24,24,146/- + RS. 17,49,954/-) WITH HIM FOR CIRCULATION WHICH IS REFL ECTED IN THE FORM OF DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. M OREOVER, DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO WORK OUT THE CU MULATIVE PEAK BALANCE OF ALL THE DEBIT AND CREDIT ENTRIES OF THREE BANK ACCOUNTS WHICH WAS PREPARED BY HIM AND PEAK BALANCE WAS ARRIVED AT RS.37,14,938/- AS ON 1 3.05.2009. THUS, THE PEAK BALANCE WITH APPELLANT IS ALSO COVERED BY THE INITIAL FUNDS OF RS, 41,74 , 091/- AVAILABLE WITH HIM. IT HAS ALSO TO BE SEEN TH AT BOTH THE AMOUNTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY AO AS SUBJECT MATTER OF TAXATION. THE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER OF APPELLANT FOR A.Y. 2009-10 CLEA RLY REFLECTS THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.24,80,354/- RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUE NO.7 9254 DATED 06.10.2008 ON ACCOUNT OF COMPENSATION AGAINST LAND ACQUISITION HA S BEEN TAXED BY AO WHILE FINALIZING THE ORDER. SIMILARLY, IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER UNDER CONSIDERATION, AS MENTIONED ABOVE, LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN HAS BEEN WO RKED OUT ON THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.17,49,954/- ON ACCOUNT O F ACQUISITION OF LAND. SINCE BOTH THE AMOUNTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY AO, A GAIN MAKING ADDITION OF THOSE AMOUNTS WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATI ON, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE AS PER LAW. 5.3 IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS HELD THAT T HE SOURCE OF CREDIT ENTRIES OF RS.72,75,116/- IS EXPLAINED, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO ADDITION MADE BY AO OF THAT AMOUNT. HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN FD AMOUNTING TO RS. 49,000/-, NEITHER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS NOR APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED OR EXPLAINED ANYTHING, THER EFORE, IT IS HELD THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY AO IS JUSTIFIED AND DESERVES TO BE SUSTAINED. SIMILARLY, NOTHING HAS BEEN EXPLAINED OR SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT REGARD ING DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST AMOUNTS OF RS.1,261/- ON FD OF RS.49,000/- AND RS. 38,568/- ON FD OF RS.6,00,000/-, AGGREGATE TO RS.39,829/-, THEREFORE, ADDITION MADE BY AO ON THIS ACCOUNT IS ALSO SUSTAINED. THUS, THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS.72,75,116/-. 6. IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION HERE THAT, AS DISCUSS ED ABOVE, HUF OF APPELLANT HAS GIVEN WORKING OF CAPITAL IN A.Y. 2009-10 BY DIS CLOSING THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION ON SALE OF PROPERTY AT RS.17,59,954/- AND AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 48 AT RS. 58,200/- AND DEDUCTION U/S, 54/54B/5 4D/54EC/54F/54G/54GA OF RS.15,93,480/-, LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.1,08,2 74/- HAS BEEN DISCLOSED. HOWEVER, DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY APPELLANT THAT DEDUCTION U/S. 54/54B/54D/54EC/54F/54G/54GA HAS WRO NGLY BEEN CLAIMED BY HUF AS THERE WAS NO PURCHASE OF ANY IMMOVABLE PROPE RTY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT THAT T HE SAID PROPERTY WAS PLANNED TO BE PURCHASED BUT FINALLY THE DEAL WAS NOT MATERIALI ZED AND PROPERTY WAS NOT PURCHASED. THUS, AS PER APPELLANT, WRONG DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED WHEREAS WHOLE - 8 - ITA NO.2268/A/14 ITO VS. SHRI NAGINBHAI N. PATEL ASST.YEAR 2010-11 OF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 17,49,954/- WAS AVAILABLE WITH HIM FOR CIRCULATION TO EXPLAIN THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, SINCE THE SAME AO HAS JURISDICTION OVER HUF OF APPELLANT ALSO, HE IS DIRE CTED TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS AND TAKE ACT ION BY DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY HUF AGAINST THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERAT ION, TO COMPUTE THE TOTAL INCOME OF HUF. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ENTIRE ASPECT OF THE MATTER, WE FIND THAT THE AO HAD FAILED TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT ON THE BASI S OF MERIT. IT IS NOT A MATTER WHETHER THE BANK ACCOUNTS BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE OR HIS HUF RAT HER IF THE SOURCE OF THOSE DEPOSITS IS EXPLAINED NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE CASE OF TH E ASSESSEE AS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY OR IN THE CASE OF HUF. IN THE CASE IN HAND, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THOSE DEPOSITS/CREDIT ENTRIES DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND METICULOUSLY BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHICH WAS RIGHTLY TAKEN INT O CONSIDERATION WHICH DELETING ADDITION BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS INDICATED BY US HEREINBEFO RE. FURTHER THAT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS PLEASED TO DIRECT THE AO TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE A FRESH REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE HUF AGAINST THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION TO COMPUTE THE TOTAL INCOME OF HUF WHICH MAKES THE ORDER COMPLETE AND MO RE REASONABLE. WE, THEREFORE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A). THE SAME IS THUS CONFIRMED. 7. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 20/12/2018 SD/- SD/- ( AMARJIT SINGH ) ( MS. MADHUMITA ROY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 20/12/2018 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS - 9 - ITA NO.2268/A/14 ITO VS. SHRI NAGINBHAI N. PATEL ASST.YEAR 2010-11 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. () / THE CIT(A)-I, SURAT. 5. , ! ' , #$%% / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. &' () / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) !, #$ / ITAT, AHMEDABAD