Smt. Minal Dipakbhai Mehta, Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-3(3), Surat

ITA 2331/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 94619 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 20-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D N MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: RASES SHAH
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Capital receipt
• Section: 133(6); 68

Judgement Text

, C IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2331/AHD/2011 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2008-2009 SMT. MINALBEN DIPAKBHAI MEHTA 601, ASHWA MEGH APARTMENT PARLE POINT, SURAT. PAN : ACRPM 0529 P VS ITO, WARD-3(3) SUAT. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RASES SHAH REVENUE BY : SHRI D.N. MISHRA ! / DATE OF HEARING : 20/08/2015 '#$ ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 03/11/2015 %& / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD.CIT(A)- II, SURAT DATED 19.7.2011 PASSED FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2008-09. 2. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FIVE GROUNDS OF AP PEAL, BUT HER GRIEVANCE REVOLVES AROUND ONE ISSUE WHEREBY SHE HAS PLEADED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF R S.53,88,401/- WHICH WAS ADDED BY THE AO WITH THE AID OF SECTION 68 OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT. ITA NO.2331 /AHD/2011 2 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. SHE DERIVES INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND COMMISSION. SHE HAS FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 20.10.2008 DECLARING TAXABLE IN COME AT RS.3,97,181/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECT ED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE A CT WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.AO GOT AN INFORMA TION THROUGH ANNUAL INFORMATION WING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINT AINED A SAVING BANK ACCOUNT OF BANK OF BARODA, IN WHICH, CASH TOTA LING TO RS.33,23,500/- HAS BEEN DEPOSITED ON VARIOUS DATES DURING THE ACCOUNTING YEAR RELEVANT TO THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE LD.AO HAS CALLED FOR INFORMATION FROM THE BANK UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. ON PERUSAL OF THE BANK STATEMENT, IT REVEALED TO THE A O THAT TOTAL DEPOSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS RS.61, 40,980/- WHICH INCLUDED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.33,23,500/-. THE LD.AO HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN HER B ANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ELABORATE SUBMISSION ON DIFFERENT ASPECTS. IN BRIEF HER EXPLANATION FOR THE DEPOSITS HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. THE EXPLANATION IS AS UNDER: SR. NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT (RS.) ERRONEOUS ADDITIONS MADE BY AO 1. CASH RECEIVED FROM FAMILY PARTITION ARRANGEMENT: MRS. MINAL MEHTA MRS.DIPAL MEHTA RAHI MEHTA 7,50,000 7,50,000 5,00,000 TREATED CAPITAL RECEIPTS AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME 2. RECEIPTS FROM SALE OF JEWELLERY 16,53,000 DIAMOND SOLD AND CAPITAL LOSS INCURRED AMOUNTING TORS.59,623/-. AO TREATED ENTIRE CAPITAL RECEIPTS AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME. 3. AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM SON/ DAUGHTER 9,25,000 TRANSFER TO FAMILY MEMBERS WHICH FALL UNDER ITA NO.2331 /AHD/2011 3 DEFINITION OF SECTION 56(1)(VI) BUT ERRED SAME AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 4. BANK INTEREST 867 5. SURPLUS CASH IN HAND DEPOSITED IN BANK 2,20,000 CASH IN HAND DEPOSITED IN BANK HAS CONSIDERED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE ABOVE DETAILS WOULD INDICATE THAT THE AO WAS NO T SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. HE MADE A NET ADDITIO N OF RS.53,88,401/- OUT OF THE ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. 4. APPEAL TO THE CIT(A) DID NOT BRING ANY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PAPER BOOK RUNNING INTO 66 PAG ES. SHE HAS ALSO FILED STATEMENT OF FACTS ALONG WITH APPEAL RUNNING INTO 11 PAGES WHEREIN SHE HAS EXPLAINED HER CASE. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TOOK US THROUGH THE STATEMENT OF FACTS AS WELL AS WRITTEN S UBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR RELIED UPON THE ORD ER OF THE AO. 6. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GO NE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX PRO VIDES THAT WHERE ANY SUM IS FOUND CREDIT IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE MA INTAINED IN PREVIOUS YEAR, AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE THEREOF, OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM I S NOT, IN THE OPINION OF THE AO, SATISFACTORY, THE SUM SO CREDITED MAY BE CHARGED TO THE INCOME-TAX, AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THAT P REVIOUS YEAR. IN ORDER TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS PUT FORTH BY THIS SECTI ON I.E. IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF DEPOSITS, ASSESSEE HAS TO PROVE IDENTITY OF THE DEPOSITORS, GENUINENESS OF THE TRAN SACTIONS AND CREDIT- WORTHINESS OF DEPOSITORS. IN OTHER WORDS, IN THE P RESENT CASE, AS FAR AS IDENTITY IS CONCERNED THAT IS NOT IN DISPUTE, BECAU SE, IT IS THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.2331 /AHD/2011 4 WHO HAS MADE THE DEPOSITS. THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY RE QUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE FROM WHERE SHE HAS DEPOSITED. THUS, IN ORDER TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED THE SOURCE FOR SUCH DEPOSITS OR NOT, LET US EVALUATE THE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. A PERUSAL OF THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD INDI CATE THAT THE SOURCE OF RS.20 LAKHS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS ST ATED TO BE THE RECEIPTS FROM FAMILY PARTITION ARRANGEMENT. THE AS SESSEE HAS FILED A COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 26.3.2007 EFFECTIVE FROM 1 ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2007. COPY OF THIS AGREEMENT IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE NO.38 TO 45 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ON THE STRENGTH OF THIS AGREEMENT, IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE LD.COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HUF IN THE NAME OF SOBHAGMAL MEHTA WAS IN EXISTENCE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS THE MEM BER OF THIS HUF. BY VIRTUE OF THIS AGREEMENT, THE HUF WAS DISSOLVED AND ASSESSEE ALONGWITH OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE HUF RECEIVED CONSIDERATION OF RS.20 LAKHS WHICH WAS USED FOR DEPOSITS IN THIS BAN K ACCOUNT. THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT ACCEPTED THIS CONTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE. SECTION 171 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DEALS WITH ASSESS MENT AFTER PARTITION OF HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY. IT IS PERTINENT TO TAKE NOTE OF THIS SECTION AS UNDER: 171. (1) A HINDU FAMILY HITHERTO ASSESSED AS UNDIV IDED SHALL BE DEEMED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT TO CONTINUE TO BE A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY, EXCEPT WHERE AND IN SO FAR AS A F INDING OF PARTITION HAS BEEN GIVEN UNDER THIS SECTION IN RESP ECT OF THE HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY. (2) WHERE, AT THE TIME OF MAKING AN ASSESSMENT UNDE R SECTION 143 OR SECTION 144, IT IS CLAIMED BY OR ON BEHALF O F ANY MEMBER OF A HINDU FAMILY ASSESSED AS UNDIVIDED THAT A PARTITI ON, WHETHER TOTAL OR PARTIAL, HAS TAKEN PLACE AMONG THE MEMBERS OF SUCH FAMILY, THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER SHALL MAKE AN INQU IRY THEREINTO AFTER GIVING NOTICE OF THE INQUIRY TO ALL THE MEMBE RS OF THE FAMILY. (3) ON THE COMPLETION OF THE INQUIRY, THE [ASSESSI NG] OFFICER SHALL RECORD A FINDING AS TO WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN A TOT AL OR PARTIAL ITA NO.2331 /AHD/2011 5 PARTITION OF THE JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY, AND, IF THE RE HAS BEEN SUCH A PARTITION, THE DATE ON WHICH IT HAS TAKEN PLACE. (4) WHERE A FINDING OF TOTAL OR PARTIAL PARTITION H AS BEEN RECORDED BY THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER UNDER THIS SECTION, AND THE PARTITION TOOK PLACE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR, (A) THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE JOINT FAMILY IN RESPECT OF THE PERIOD UP TO THE DATE OF PARTITION SHALL BE ASSESSED AS IF NO PARTITION HAD TAKEN PLACE; AND (B) EACH MEMBER OR GROUP OF MEMBERS4 SHALL, IN ADDI TION TO ANY TAX FOR WHICH HE OR IT MAY BE SEPARATELY LIABLE AND NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN CLAUSE (2) OF SECTION 10, BE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR THE TAX ON THE INCOME SO ASSESSED. (5) WHERE A FINDING OF TOTAL OR PARTIAL PARTITION H AS BEEN RECORDED BY THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER UNDER THIS SECTION, AND THE PARTITION TOOK PLACE AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR, T HE TOTAL INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR OF THE JOINT FAMILY SHALL BE ASSE SSED AS IF NO PARTITION HAD TAKEN PLACE; AND THE PROVISIONS OF CL AUSE (B) OF SUB- SECTION (4) SHALL, SO FAR AS MAY BE, APPLY TO THE C ASE. (6) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECT ION, IF THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER FINDS AFTER COMPLETION OF T HE ASSESSMENT OF A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY THAT THE FAMILY HAS ALREAD Y EFFECTED A PARTITION, WHETHER TOTAL OR PARTIAL, THE [ASSESSING ] OFFICER SHALL PROCEED TO RECOVER THE TAX FROM EVERY PERSON WHO WA S A MEMBER OF THE FAMILY BEFORE THE PARTITION, AND EVERY SUCH PERSON SHALL BE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR THE TAX ON THE INC OME SO ASSESSED. (7) FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, THE SEVERAL L IABILITY OF ANY MEMBER OR GROUP OF MEMBERS THEREUNDER SHALL BE COMP UTED ACCORDING TO THE PORTION OF THE JOINT FAMILY PROPER TY ALLOTTED TO HIM OR IT AT THE PARTITION, WHETHER TOTAL OR PARTIAL. (8) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL, SO FAR AS MAY BE, APPLY IN RELATION TO THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ANY PENALTY, INTEREST, FINE OR OTHER SUM IN RESPECT OF ANY PERIOD UP TO DATE OF TH E PARTITION, WHETHER TOTAL OR PARTIAL, OF A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMI LY AS THEY APPLY ITA NO.2331 /AHD/2011 6 IN RELATION TO THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF TAX IN RE SPECT OF ANY SUCH PERIOD. (9) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THE FOREG OING PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, WHERE A PARTIAL PARTITION HAS TAKE N PLACE AFTER THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 1978, AMONG THE MEMBERS OF A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY HITHERTO ASSESSED AS UNDIVIDED, (A) NO CLAIM THAT SUCH PARTIAL PARTITION HAS TAKEN PLACE SHALL BE INQUIRED INTO UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) AND NO FINDING SHALL BE RECORDED UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) THAT SUCH PARTIAL PA RTITION HAD TAKEN PLACE AND ANY FINDING RECORDED UNDER SUB-SECT ION (3) TO THAT EFFECT WHETHER BEFORE OR AFTER THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 1980, BEING THE DATE OF INTRODUCTION OF THE FINANCE (NO. 2) BILL, 1980, SHALL BE NULL AND VOID; (B) SUCH FAMILY SHALL CONTINUE TO BE LIABLE TO BE A SSESSED UNDER THIS ACT AS IF NO SUCH PARTIAL PARTITION HAD TAKEN PLACE ; (C) EACH MEMBER OR GROUP OF MEMBERS OF SUCH FAMILY IMMEDIATELY BEFORE SUCH PARTIAL PARTITION AND THE FAMILY SHALL BE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR ANY TAX, PENALTY, INTEREST, FI NE OR OTHER SUM PAYABLE UNDER THIS ACT BY THE FAMILY IN RESPECT OF ANY PERIOD, WHETHER BEFORE OR AFTER SUCH PARTIAL PARTITION; (D) THE SEVERAL LIABILITY OF ANY MEMBER OR GROUP OF MEMBERS AFORESAID SHALL BE COMPUTED ACCORDING TO THE PORTIO N OF THE JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY ALLOTTED TO HIM OR IT AT SUCH PARTI AL PARTITION, AND THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL APPLY ACCORDIN GLY.] EXPLANATION.IN THIS SECTION, (A) 'PARTITION' MEANS (I) WHERE THE PROPERTY ADMITS OF A PHYSICAL DIVISIO N, A PHYSICAL DIVISION OF THE PROPERTY, BUT A PHYSICAL DIVISION O F THE INCOME WITHOUT A PHYSICAL DIVISION OF THE PROPERTY PRODUCI NG THE INCOME SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE A PARTITION; OR (II) WHERE THE PROPERTY DOES NOT ADMIT OF A PHYSICA L DIVISION, THEN SUCH DIVISION AS THE PROPERTY ADMITS OF, BUT A MERE SEVERANCE OF STATUS SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE A PARTITION; ITA NO.2331 /AHD/2011 7 (B) 'PARTIAL PARTITION' MEANS A PARTITION WHICH IS PARTIAL AS REGARDS THE PERSONS CONSTITUTING THE HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY , OR THE PROPERTIES BELONGING TO THE HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY, OR BOTH. 7. A PERUSAL OF THIS SECTION WOULD INDICATE THAT A HINDU FAMILY ASSESSED AS UNDIVIDED SHALL BE DEEMED FOR THIS PURP OSE OF THIS ACT TO CONTINUE TO BE HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY, EXCEPT A FIN DING OF PARTITION HAS BEEN GIVEN UNDER THIS SECTION IN RESPECT OF THAT HU F. MEANING THEREBY, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT OF HUF OR ALONG RET URN OF HUF, THE FACT OF PARTITION OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE NOT ICE OF THE DEPARTMENT, AND FINDING COULD HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN DICATING THE PARTITION. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY SUCH FACT BEFORE THE AO. SHE FAILED TO PRODUCE COPIES OF BALANCE SHEET DEMON STRATING THE CAPITAL BALANCE OR ANY OTHER ASSET WITH THE HUF WHICH HAS B EEN DEVOLVED UPON THE MEMBERS OF THE HUF ON ITS ALLEGED PARTITION. T O OUR MIND IT IS A FAINT ATTEMPT AT THE END OF THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF RS.20 LAKHS. WITH THE HELP OF THIS COPY OF AGREEMENT, IT COULD NOT BE PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED ALONG WITH HER FAMILY MEMBERS A SUM OF RS.20 LAKHS ON PARTITION OF THE HUF. THUS , THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.20 LAKHS OUT OF THE ABOVE ADDITION MAD E BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED. 8. THE NEXT EXPLANATION IS WITH REGARD TO RS.16,53, 000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT SHE HAS SOLD DIAMOND AND J EWELLERY TO THREE PARTIES AND RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.16,53,000/- WHICH WAS USED FOR DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE EVIDENCE SUBMITT ED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF HER CLAIM IS AS UNDER: SR.NO. NAME OF PARTY TO WHOM JEWELLERY SOLD AMOUNT PROOF ATTACHED. 1. NEEL GEMS 1,69,508 CONFIRMATION, P&I A/C., BALANCE ITA NO.2331 /AHD/2011 8 SHEET, ITR, COMPUTATION PAN:AACHD7516K 2 KASUHAL DIAMOND 6,26,294/- CONFIRMATION, P&I A/C, BALANCE SHEET, ITR, COMPUTATION PAN: AAGHS2434C 3 SONAL GEMS 8,57,684/- CONFIRMATION, P&I A/C., BALANCE SHEET, ITR, COMPUTATION PAN: ACRPM0529 P TOTAL 16,53,036/- 9. THE COPIES OF CONFIRMATION AND BILL ETC. HAVE BE EN PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HER PRIMARY ONUS BY GIVING AN EXPLANATION ALONG WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENC E. THE LD.AO HAS NOT ISSUED ANY NOTICE TO THESE THREE PARTIES, AND H AS NOT CROSS-VERIFIED THE CONFIRMATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE SI MPLY DISBELIEVED IT. TO OUR MIND THIS IS NOT A RIGHT COURSE AT THE END O F THE AO. HE OUGHT TO HAVE DISPROVED THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE OR OUGHT TO HAVE POINTED OUT THE DEFECTS IN THE EVI DENCES BY CROSS- VERIFYING THE FACTS. NO SUCH STEPS WERE TAKEN BY THE AO, THEREFORE, TO THIS EXTENT, IT COULD BE EXPECTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCES OF THE FUNDS DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT U PTO RS.16,53,000/-. 10. THE NEXT EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO AMOUNT OF RS.9,25,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED T HAT THIS AMOUNT IS RECEIVED FROM HER SON AND DAUGHTER. SHE FILED DETA ILS OF THEIR BANK ACCOUNT AND OTHER EVIDENCES. A PERUSAL OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD REVEAL THAT A SUM OF RS.3,00,000/- D EPOSITED ON 15.5.2007. IT HAS COME FROM SAVING BANK ACCOUNT NO .2982. THE ITA NO.2331 /AHD/2011 9 ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT RS.3,00,000/- WAS RECEI VED FROM HER SON ROHAN AND IT HAS TRANSFERRED FROM HIS ACCOUNT. SIM ILARLY, RS.6,25,000/- WAS STATED TO BE RECEIVED FROM DAUGHTER. IN THE BA NK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ON 23.11.2007, 9.11.2007 AND 4.12.2007 THR EE ENTRIES BY CLEARANCE OF CHEQUE FROM AN ACCOUNT NO.1535 AND 153 6 ARE AVAILABLE. ALL THESE THREE ACCOUNTS, A SUM OF RS.1,00,000/-, R S.4,00,000/- AND RS.1,25,000/- STANDS CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT O F THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE ABOUT THE SOURCE OF AMOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.9,25,000/-. THE AO, EXCEPT DISBELIEVING THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE, FAILED TO BRING ANY EV IDENCE CONTRARY TO THE ONE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE ADDITION TO THIS EXTENT WOULD BE DELETED. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCES . 11. THE NEXT EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS OF RS.2,20,000/- AND BANK INTEREST OF RS.867/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS FI LED A COPY OF HER CASH BOOK AND HER BANK STATEMENT. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED RS.50,000/- ON 23.1.2008. IT WAS BY CLEA RANCE. THEN ON 24.1.2008, RS.50,000/- WAS WITHDRAWN AND AGAIN ON 3 0.1.2008 RS.50,000/- WAS DEPOSITED. ON 5.2.2008 RS.50,000/- WAS AGAIN WITHDRAWN. THUS, THERE IS A ROTATION OF THE AMOUNT S. SOME OF THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE DULY TALLIED WITH THE AMOUNTS AVAILABLE IN THE CASH BOOK ON THAT DATE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN SUFFICIENT AMOUNTS FROM THE BANK ACCO UNT, WHICH WAS ENTERED INTO IN THE CASH BOOK, AND AFTER WITHDRAWIN G THE AMOUNT FROM THE BANK, THE AMOUNT WAS AGAIN RE-DEPOSITED. THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT HER PERSONAL CASH BOOK HAS BEEN IG NORED AND THE SAME AMOUNT HAS BEEN ACCOUNTED TWICE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT . THE LD.AO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY PLAUSIBLE REASONING FOR REJECTING THI S EXPLANATION. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE BANK STATEMENT, IT IS DISCERNIBL E THAT SOME OF THE CASH WAS WITHDRAWN AND RE-DEPOSITED WITHIN VERY SHO RT PERIOD. ITA NO.2331 /AHD/2011 10 THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THE ALLEGED SURPLUS CASH ACCUMULATED IN THE CASH BOOK OUT OF THE WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK IS T O BE CONSIDERED AS SOURCE OF RE-DEPOSIT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSS ION, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE PARTLY. OUT OF THE TOTAL AD DITION OF RS.53,88,401/-, ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.20,00, 000/- (RUPEES TWENTY LAKHS) IS CONFIRMED AND REST IS DELETED. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 3 RD NOVEMBER, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER