Suravaghala Kongadala Rao, Visakhapatnam V. THE ITO, WARD - 2(2), Visakhapatnam

ITA 241/VIZ/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2053 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M K SETHI
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Income from undisclosed sources; Salary income; Source of fund; Application of stay

Judgement Text

ITA NO.241/VIZAG/2014 & SP 19/VIZAG/2015 SURAVAGHALA KONDALA RAO, VSKP 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . , . , $ BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A.NO.241/VIZAG/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) SURAVAGHALA KONDALA RAO VISAKHAPATNAM VS. ITO , WARD - 2(2) , VISAKHAPATNAM [PAN: AJEPS 7536C ] ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) S.P. NO.19/VIZAG/2015 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NO.241/VIZAG/2014) ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) SURAVAGHALA KONDALA RAO VISAKHAPATNAM VS. ITO , WARD - 2(2) , VISAKHAPATNAM ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.V.N. HARI, AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.K. SETHI, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 16.02.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.02.2016 ITA NO.241/VIZAG/2014 & SP 19/VIZAG/2015 SURAVAGHALA KONDALA RAO, VSKP 2 / O R D E R PER G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), VISAKHAPATNAM DATED 26.2.2014 AND IT PERTAI NS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVES INCOME FROM SALARY AND OTHER SOURCES FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON 23.7.2009 DECLAR ING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 2,21,720/-, BESIDES AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ` 50,000/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND ACCORDINGLY, N OTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS 'TH E ACT') WAS ISSUED. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, FROM T HE AIR INFORMATION, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED A SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT AT CORPORATION BANK AND MADE CASH DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO ` 40,04,000/-. THEREFORE, ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE AND NATURE OF CREDITS INTO THE B ANK ACCOUNT. IN RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FIL ED A WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND STATED THAT HE HAD SOURCE FOR CASH D EPOSITS INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT H E IS ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX AND THE CASH DEPOSITS WERE EXPLAINED FRO M HIS FAST SAVING ITA NO.241/VIZAG/2014 & SP 19/VIZAG/2015 SURAVAGHALA KONDALA RAO, VSKP 3 FROM HIS SALARY INCOME AND ALSO SAVINGS FROM HIS WI FES ACCOUNT. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION, HE HAS RECEIVED CASH GIFT OF ` 8,21,798/- ON THE OCCASION OF HIS SONS MARRIAGE, WHICH WAS ALSO DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT TO KEEP FIXE D DEPOSITS IN THE NAME OF HIS SON AND PAYMENT OF INSURANCE PREMIUM. I N SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM FILED NECESSARY CASH FLOW STATEMENTS, AFFIDAV ITS AND LIST OF GIFTS RECEIVED FROM FRIENDS AND RELATIVES, SO AS TO EXPLA IN THE AVAILABILITY OF SOURCES FOR CASH DEPOITS. THE A.O. HOWEVER AFTER CO NSIDERING THE EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE REJECTED THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATIONS AND MADE ADDITIONS OF ` 40,04,000/- U/S 69A OF THE ACT. THE A.O. FURTHER HELD THAT THOUGH ASSESSEE CLAIMS T O HAVE SOURCES FOR CREDITS IN TO BANK ACCOUNT, HE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTA NTIATE THE SOURCES WITH COGENT EVIDENCES TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE AS SESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. WAS NOT CORRECT IN REJECTING THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCES OF INCOME TO PROVE THE CASH CREDITS INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT H E WAS IN EMPLOYMENT SINCE 1977 AND FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT, HE H AD SAVING OF ` 8,21,798/-. FURTHER, DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION, HE HAD ITA NO.241/VIZAG/2014 & SP 19/VIZAG/2015 SURAVAGHALA KONDALA RAO, VSKP 4 RECEIVED A SUM OF ` 5,09,000/- FROM SALE PROCEEDS OF SARUGUDU THOTA. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD USED HIS WIFE SAVINGS OF ` 10,46,675/- FOR CASH DEPOSITS INTO BANK ACCOUNT. TH E ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT HIS WIFE WAS A POST GRADUATE IN PUBL IC ADMINISTRATION CONDUCTING TUITION CLASSES FOR THE STUDENTS. SHE HA S EARNED INCOME FROM TUITION CLASSES AND ALSO INTEREST INCOME. TO THIS E FFECT FILED A CASH FLOW STATEMENT ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT FROM HIS WIFE TO PRO VE THAT SHE HAD INCOME FROM TUITIONS. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE CLAI MED TO HAVE RECEIVED CASH GIFT OF ` 8,21,798/- ON THE OCCASION OF HIS SONS MARRIAGE A ND FILED A LIST OF SUCH DONORS ALONG WITH CONFIRMATION LETTE R FROM FEW DONORS CONFIRMING THE DONATIONS GIVEN ON THE OCCASION OF T HE MARRIAGE. THEREFORE, THE A.O. WAS NOT CORRECT IN REJECTING TH E EVIDENCES FILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCES FOR CASH CREDITS. THE CIT( A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HELD THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE SOURCES FOR CASH CREDIT WITH ANY COGEN T MATERIAL EVIDENCES. HOWEVER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SOCIAL ST ATUS AND ALSO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEES SONS MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE DURIN G THE FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, HAS ACCEPTED A SUM OF ` 3 LAKHS OUT OF THE TOTAL GIFTS CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED OF ` 8,21,798/-. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, THE CIT(A) ALLOWED RELIEF OF RS. 3,00,000/- AND CON FIRMED THE ADDITIONS ITA NO.241/VIZAG/2014 & SP 19/VIZAG/2015 SURAVAGHALA KONDALA RAO, VSKP 5 TO THE TUNE OF ` 29,54,000/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE CIT(A) ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) WAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSES SEE. THE A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DETAILED CASH FLOW STATEMENT ALONG WITH RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE SO URCES CLAIMED IN THE CASH FLOW. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED TH E EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, AS EACH SOURCE OF INCOME HAS SUPPORTI NG EVIDENCES. THE A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A DETAILED CASH FLOW STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1998-99 TO 2008-09 AN D ARRIVED AT NET SAVINGS OF ` 7,88,875/-. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF ` 5,09,000/- FROM SALE PROCEEDS OF SARUGUDU THOTA. THE A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES WIFE IS A POST GRADUATE HAVING REGULAR SOURCE OF INCOME FROM TUITIONS AND I NCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCES TO THE EXTENT OF ` 10,46,675/-. TO THIS EFFECT, ASSESSEE HAS FILED NECESSARY CASH FLOW STAT EMENT ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT FROM HIS WIFE AFFIRMING THE EARNING OF IN COME BY CONDUCTING TUITION CLASSES. THE A.O. WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REA SONS REJECTED THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS NOT CORREC T. SIMILARLY, DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECE IVED CASH GIFT ON THE OCCASION OF HIS SONS MARRIAGE WHICH WAS USED FOR C ASH DEPOSITS INTO ITA NO.241/VIZAG/2014 & SP 19/VIZAG/2015 SURAVAGHALA KONDALA RAO, VSKP 6 BANK ACCOUNT TO MAKE FIXED DEPOSITS IN THE NAME OF HIS SON. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 37,06,348/- AND REMAINING AMOUNT WAS UNEXPLAINED, WHICH WAS ACC EPTED BEFORE THE A.O. AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE A.O. W ITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASONS SUMMARILY REJECTED THE EVIDENCE FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE AND MADE ADDITIONS U/S 69A OF THE ACT WHICH IS NOT CORR ECT. THE LD. A.R. IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENTS RELIED UPON THE HONBLE HI GH COURT OF GUJARAT DECISION IN THE CASE OF PIPUSH KUMAR O. DESAI VS. C IT REPORTED IN 247 ITR 568 (2001) AND ALSO ITAT DELHI BENCH DECISION I N THE CASE OF INDERJIT SINGH SABARWAL VS. ACIT REPORTED IN (2012 ) 31 CCH 420 AND SUBMITTED THAT WHEN AVAILABILITY OF CASH WAS EXPLAI NED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE HELP OF CASH FLOW STATEMENT, THE CIT(A) WA S NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING PART OF ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEX PLAINED INVESTMENTS. THEREFORE, REQUESTED TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONGLY S UPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MA TERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE A.O. MADE ADDITIONS OF ` 40,04,000/- U/S 69A OF THE ACT, TOWARDS CASH DEPOSITS INTO BANK ACCOUNT . THE A.O. WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES FOR CASH DEPOSITS WITH EVIDENCES. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF T HE ASSESSEE THAT HE ITA NO.241/VIZAG/2014 & SP 19/VIZAG/2015 SURAVAGHALA KONDALA RAO, VSKP 7 HAS SOURCES FOR CASH DEPOSITS AND FILED NECESSARY D ETAILS, SUCH AS HIS PAST SAVINGS, SAVINGS OF HIS WIFE AND CASH GIFT REC EIVED ON THE OCCASION OF HIS SONS MARRIAGE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT HE HAD NET CASH SAVINGS OF ` 13,02,375/- CONSISTING OF HIS PAST SAVINGS OF ` 7,88,875/- AND AMOUNT OF ` 5,09,000/- RECEIVED FROM SALE OF SARUGUDU THOTA. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE USED HIS WIFES SAVINGS OF ` 10,46,675/- AND CONTENDS THAT HIS WIFE WAS A POST GRADUATE IN PUBLI C ADMINISTRATION RUNNING TUITION CLASSES AND EARNING INCOME WHICH WA S POOLED AND DEPOSITED INTO BANK ACCOUNT. HE FURTHER CLAIMS THAT HE HAD RECEIVED CASH GIFT OF ` 8,21,798/- ON THE OCCASION OF HIS SONS MARRIAGE A ND FILED A LIST OF GIFT RECEIVED FROM ABOUT 300 GUESTS ALONG WITH 16 CONFIRMATION LETTERS. IN ALL, PUT TOGETHER HE HAS EXPLAINED SOU RCES TO THE EXTENT OF ` 37,06,348/- AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF ` 6,50,000/- WAS ACCEPTED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. THE A.O. REJECTED ASSESSEE S EXPLANATIONS AND STATED THAT THOUGH ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE SOURCES FROM THE ABOVE SOURCES OF INCOME, FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM WITH ANY COGENT EVIDENCES. THE A.O. WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. THEREFO RE, CASH DEPOSIT TO THE TUNE OF ` 40,04,000/- STANDS UNEXPLAINED AND HENCE, MADE ADD ITIONS U/S 69A OF THE ACT. ITA NO.241/VIZAG/2014 & SP 19/VIZAG/2015 SURAVAGHALA KONDALA RAO, VSKP 8 6. THE ASSESSEE FILED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING COPY OF IMPUGNED BANK ACCOUNT, CASH FLOW STATEMENTS, COPY OF AFFIDAV IT FROM HIS WIFE AND BROTHERS AND CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM DONORS WHO G IFTED ON THE OCCASION OF HIS SONS MARRIAGE. ON PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSIT ED PERIODICALLY SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF CASH INTO HIS BANK ACCOUNT AN D WERE UTILIZED TO MAKE VARIOUS FDS AND PAYMENT OF INSURANCE PREMIUM. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCLOSE THIS BANK ACCOUNT ALONG W ITH INCOME TAX RETURN REGULARLY FILED WITH DEPARTMENT. HOWEVER, THE A.O., FROM THE AIR INFORMATION, FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HELD A BANK AC COUNT AT CORPORATION BANK AND ALSO MADE CASH DEPOSIT OF ` 40,04,000/-. THOUGH, ASSESSEE SUBSEQUENTLY CAME UP WITH AN EXPLANATION THAT AFORE SAID CASH DEPOSIT OF ` 40,04,000/- WAS OUT OF HIS AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS SAVINGS, HE COULD NOT PRODUCE SINGLE RELIABLE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH AND PROVE HIS CONTENTIONS. ON FURTHER VERIFICATION OF CASH FL OW STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE NOTICED THAT HE HAS ARRIVED CASH S URPLUS OF ` 7,88,875/- FROM THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1998-99 TO FINAN CIAL YEAR 2008-09. ON FURTHER VERIFICATION OF CASH INFLOW, OUTFLOW AND SURPLUS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT WAS PREPARED W ITH A PURE GUESS WORK WHICH WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCES. FURT HER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN HOW HIS LIFE TIME SAVINGS WAS KEPT IN THE FORM OF ITA NO.241/VIZAG/2014 & SP 19/VIZAG/2015 SURAVAGHALA KONDALA RAO, VSKP 9 ONLY CASH AND DEPOSITED INTO BANK ACCOUNT DURING TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. FURTHER, HE CLAIMED TO HAVE SAVINGS OF RS. 4,50,000/- PRIOR TO 1998-99, BUT FAILED PROVE THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH WITH ANY EVIDENCES. AS FOR AS SALE RECEIPT OF SARGUDU THOTA, ASSESSEE FILED TWO CASH RECEIPTS FROM A BUYER OF THE PRODUCT WHICH WER E ISSUED IN WHITE PAPER, THEREFORE, THESE CASH RECEIPTS CANNOT BE CON SIDERED AS GENUINE DOCUMENTS TO PROVE THE TRANSACTION. 7. COMING TO THE OTHER SOURCES OF INCOME CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT HIS WIFES SAVINGS OF ` 10,46,675/- WAS UTILIZED TO DEPOSIT THE CASH INTO BANK ACCOUNT. IT WAS FURTH ER CLAIMED THAT HIS WIFE WAS A POST GRADUATE AND SHE WAS EARNING BY CON DUCTING TUITIONS. A CASH FLOW STATEMENT WAS FILED FOR 10 YEARS CLAIMING THAT SHE HAD SAVINGS OF ` 10,46,675/-. ON PERUSAL OF CASH FLOW STATEMENT, W E NOTICED THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED GIFTS FROM HER FATHER AND BROTHER, HOWEVER FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF GIFTS RECEIVED. WE FURTHER NOTICED THAT SHE DID NOT EXPLAIN HOW THE SAVINGS WAS KEPT I N CASH ALL THESE YEARS AND USED FOR DEPOSIT INTO HER HUSBAND BANK ACCOUNT. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT SHE COULD NOT FILED ANY BANK ACCOUNT TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT FROM HIS WIFE, AFFIRMING THAT SHE HAD INCOME FROM TUITIO NS AND INVESTED THE MONEY IN CHIT FUNDS. ON VERIFICATION OF THE DETAIL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, ITA NO.241/VIZAG/2014 & SP 19/VIZAG/2015 SURAVAGHALA KONDALA RAO, VSKP 10 WE NOTICED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , SHE HAD RECEIVED TWO AMOUNTS OF ` 4,25,000/- AND ` 3,65,000/- FROM CHIT COMPANY. ON FURTHER VERIFICATION OF CHIT DOCUMENTS, WE NOTICED THAT THE CHIT COMPANY HAS PAID THE AMOUNT IN CHEQUES. THE ASSESSEE NEITHE R FURNISHED BANK ACCOUNT NOR FILED ANY DETAILS TO PROVE THAT HOW THE SE TWO CHIT AMOUNTS WERE UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CASH DEPOSITS INTO BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE RECEIVED CASH GIFT OF ` 8,21,798/- ON THE OCCASION OF HIS SONS MARRIAGE AND THE SAME WAS USE D FOR CASH DEPOSITS INTO BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT HE HAD DEPOSITED GIFT RECEIVED INTO HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND MADE FIXED DEPOSIT IN THE NAME OF HIS SON. THOUGH ASSESSEE FILED A LIST OF DONORS ALONG WITH 16 CONFIRMATION LETTERS, THAT ITSELF IS NOT ENOUGH TO PROVE THAT HE HAD RECEIVED CASH GIFT OF SUCH A HUGE AMOUNT. OUT OF T HE TOTAL 300 GIFTS, ONLY FEW ARE IN KIND AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT IS RE CEIVED IN CASH, THAT TOO IN UNIFORM AMOUNT OF ` 1,116/- OR ` 5116/-. THEREFORE, IT IS UNBELIEVABLE THAT HE HAS RECEIVED SUCH A HUGE AMOUN T OF CASH GIFTS ON THE OCCASION OF HIS SONS MARRIAGE. 8. THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DEC ISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF PIPUSH KUMAR O . DESAI VS. CIT (SUPRA) AND ITAT DELHI BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE O F INDERJIT SINGH SABARWAL VS. ACIT (SUPRA) AND ARGUED THAT WHEN AVAI LABILITY OF CASH WAS ITA NO.241/VIZAG/2014 & SP 19/VIZAG/2015 SURAVAGHALA KONDALA RAO, VSKP 11 EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE HELP OF CASH FLO W STATEMENT, THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADDING THE CASH DEPOSITS U/S 6 9A OF THE ACT. THE A.R. FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CAS H FLOW STATEMENT AND FILED NECESSARY EVIDENCES AND ALSO AFFIDAVIT FROM T HE PERSONS TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES RECORDED IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT. TH EREFORE, THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE EVIDENCES WITHOU T ASSIGNING ANY REASONS. 9. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. A.R. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND FIND S THAT THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO T HE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE CASE BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COU RT OF GUJARAT WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCES WITH TH E HELP OF CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND FILED ADEQUATE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT O F THE SOURCES CLAIMED IN CASH FLOW STATEMENT. SIMILARLY, THE ITA T DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF INDERJEET SINGH SABARWAL (SUPRA) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED SUFFICIENT DETAILS WITH REGARD TO THE SOU RCES. 10. IN THE PRESENT CASE ON HAND, THOUGH ASSESSEE FI LED CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND ALSO AFFIDAVIT FROM HIS WIFE AFFIRMIN G HAVING INCOME FROM TUITIONS AND INTEREST, HE FAILED TO FURNISH COGENT EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE CLAI MED TO HAVE SAVINGS FROM HIS SALARY INCOME AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME. HI S CLAIM THAT HIS LIFE ITA NO.241/VIZAG/2014 & SP 19/VIZAG/2015 SURAVAGHALA KONDALA RAO, VSKP 12 TIME SAVINGS WAS KEPT IN THE FORM OF CASH AND DEPOS ITED INTO BANK ACCOUNT IS QUITE OPPOSITE TO THE HUMAN PROBABILITY. THE EXPLANATIONS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE SOURCES FOR CA SH DEPOSIT IS PURELY A GUESS WORK, BUT NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY COGENT MATERIA LS. ON PERUSAL OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF SOURC ES FOR CASH DEPOSITS, I.E. HIS CASH INFLOW, CASH OUTFLOW AND SAVINGS AND MODE OF SAVINGS AND THEN APPLIED TO THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITY, IT F AILS TO PASS THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITY. WHEN ASSESSEE MAKES A CLAIM AND WHICH IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCES OR EVIDENCES ARE INADEQU ATE, THEN HUMAN PROBABILITY TEST IS ONE OF THE IMPORTANT TESTS LAID DOWN BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF INDIA IN ORDER TO CHECK THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, A PERSON WHOSE ANNUAL INCOME IS ` 20,000/- WITH WHICH HE RUNS HIS LIVING SHOW CLAIMS THAT HE PURCHASED A DIA MOND NECKLACE WORTH ` 2 LAKHS AND INFORMED THE A.O. THAT HE HAS BOUGHT I T FROM OUT OF HIS SAVINGS. NOW WHEN WE APPLY THE HUMAN PROBABILITY TE ST, WE CAN EASILY INFER THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT HAVE BOUGHT THAT NEC KLACE OUT OF HIS INCOME. 11. IN THE PRESENT CASE ON HAND, THOUGH ASSESSEE CL AIMS THAT HE HAD SOURCES FOR CASH DEPOSITS, THE SOURCES CLAIMED AND CORRESPONDING EVIDENCES FAILS TO PASS THE HUMAN PROBABILITY TEST. THE CIT(A) AFTER CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSES SEE HAS ELABORATELY ITA NO.241/VIZAG/2014 & SP 19/VIZAG/2015 SURAVAGHALA KONDALA RAO, VSKP 13 DISCUSSED EACH AND EVERY ITEM OF SOURCE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, ALLO WED RELIEF OF RS. 3,00,000/- AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF ` 36,04,000/-.WE DO NOT SEE ANY ERROR OR INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASS ED BY THE CIT(A). HENCE, WE INCLINED TO UPHELD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AN D DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 12. THE STAY APPLICATION IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE WITH A REQUEST TO STAY THE OUTSTANDING DEMAND TILL THE DISPOSAL OF TH E APPEAL. SINCE, THE APPEAL HAS ALREADY BEEN DISMISSED, THIS STAY APPLIC ATION HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. WE, ACCORDINGLY DISMISS THE SAME BEING INFRUCTUOUS. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AND THE STAY APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DISM ISSED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH FEB16. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . ) (V. DURGA RAO) (G. MANJUNATHA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /VISAKHAPATNAM: ' /DATED : 25.02.2016 VG/SPS ITA NO.241/VIZAG/2014 & SP 19/VIZAG/2015 SURAVAGHALA KONDALA RAO, VSKP 14 )# *# /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / THE APPELLANT SHRI SURAVAGHALA KONDALA RAO, GF 4, FIRST FLOOR, KALYAN MOHANTY MANSON, MAHARANIPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. / THE RESPONDENT THE ITO WARD-2(2), VISAKHAPATNA M 3. + / THE CIT-2, VISAKHAPATNAM 4. + ( ) / THE CIT (A), VISAKHAPATNAM 5. # . , . , # / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // 12 . (SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY) . , # / ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM