ITO, Nabha V. Shri Kamaljeet Singh, Nabha

ITA 253/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7428 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Onus to prove

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH A , CHANDIGARH , ! ' # $ % & ' , ' BEFORE SMT.DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.252/CHD/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NABHA. SH.JASPREET SINGH S/O SH.GURCHARAN SINGH, VILLAGE THUHI, NABHA. ./PAN NO: DKZPS5323G /APPELLANT /RESPONDENT & C.O.NO.15/CHD/2019 IN ./ ITA NO.252/CHD/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SH.JASPREET SINGH S/O SH.GURCHARAN SINGH, VILLAGE THUHI, NABHA. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NABHA. ./PAN NO: DKZPS5323G /APPELLANT /RESPONDENT AND ./ ITA NO.253/CHD/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NABHA. SH.KAMALJEET SINGH S/O SH.AMRIK SINGH, VILLAGE THUHI, NABHA. ./PAN NO: PTLI10004B /APPELLANT /RESPONDENT & C.O.NO.16/CHD/2019 IN ITA NO.252/CHD/2019 & CO NO.15/CHD/2019 A.Y.2012-13 & ITA NO.253/CHD/2019 & CO NO.16/CHD/2019 A.Y.2012-13 2 ./ ITA NO.253/CHD/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SH.KAMALJEET SINGH S/O SH.AMRIK SINGH, VILLAGE THUHI, NABHA. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NABHA. ./PAN NO: PTLI10004B /APPELLANT /RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR, CA ! / REVENUE BY : SMT.CHANDERKANTA, SR.DR ' # $ /DATE OF HEARING : 11.07.2019 %&'( $ /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23. 07.2019 /ORDER PER BENCH : BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF DIFF ERENT ASSESSEES HAVE BEEN PREFERRED AGAINST SEPARATE ORD ERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PATIALA [(IN SHORT CIT(A)] BOTH DATED 4.12.2018, RELATING TO ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2012-13. THE ASSESSEES HAVE FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE SAME. 2. THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES IN B OTH THE CASES WERE AT THE OUTSET ITSELF STATED AS BEING NO T PRESSED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE SAM E ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. AS FOR THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE, AT THE OUTSET IT WAS STATED THAT THE FACTS AND ISSUE INVOLVED IN BOTH TH E APPEALS WAS IDENTICAL ,RELATING TO ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUN T OF ITA NO.252/CHD/2019 & CO NO.15/CHD/2019 A.Y.2012-13 & ITA NO.253/CHD/2019 & CO NO.16/CHD/2019 A.Y.2012-13 3 UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN LAND. THEY WERE THEREFO RE TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR HEARING. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE WE SHALL BE DEALING WIT H THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF JASPREET SINGH IN ITA NO.252/CHD/201 9 AND THE DECISION RENDERED THEREIN WILL BE APPLIED MUTATIS M UTANDIS TO APPEAL OF THE OTHER ASSESSEE ALSO. 4. GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE READ AS U NDER: 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LD. CIT( APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.L,50,07,500/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT TOWARDS PUR CHASE OF AGRICULTURE LAND. 2. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF LD.CIT (A) BE SET AS IDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. RESTORED. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROU NDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL US HEARD AND FINALLY DISPO SED OFF. 5. AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE THE SOLITARY ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL RELATES TO ADDITION MADE TO THE INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT TOWAR DS PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. 6. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE A RE THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER (A.O), INQUIRING INTO AN ALLEGATION IN A TAX EVASION PETIT ION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL LAND IN VILLAGE CHASWAL FOR RS.1,50,07,500/- DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEV ANT TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD INDEED PURCHASED THE LAND ON 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2012.THE AO ITA NO.252/CHD/2019 & CO NO.15/CHD/2019 A.Y.2012-13 & ITA NO.253/CHD/2019 & CO NO.16/CHD/2019 A.Y.2012-13 4 ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE INV ESTMENT AND THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY STATED THAT THE INVESTMENT WA S SOURCED FROM UNSECURED LOANS RECEIVED FROM THE FOLLOWING PE RSONS: SR. NO . NAME OF CREDITOR AMOUNT IN RUPEES DATE OF LOAN 1. SHINGARA SINGH 15,00,000/- 17.02.2012 2. BAGHEL SINGH 20,00,000/- 10.02.2012 3. KAKA SINGH 4,00,000/- 01.01.2012 4. MAJOR SINGH 50,00,000/- 01.02.2012 5. NAIB SINGH 49,00,000/- 01.12.2011 6. JAGTAR SINGH 20,00,000/- 30.11.2011 THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ALONG WITH THE SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE CRE DITORS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED DETAILS OF THE SOURCE OF THE SOURCE. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE ABOVE THE LD AO SUMMONED AND RECORDED THE STATEMENTS OF THE 6 CREDITORS AS UNDER : I. SHINGARA SINGH, BAGHEL SINGH AND KAKA SINGH ON 21.12.20 17 II. MAJOR SINGH, NAIB SINGH AND KARTAR SINGH ON 22.12 2012 THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING SOURCE OF SOURCE AND THE STATEMENTS OF THE 6 CREDITORS ARE SUMMARIZE D IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AT PARA 4.2 AS UNDER:- SR. NO. NAME OF CREDITOR AMOUNT IN RUPEES SOURCE OF SOURCE EVIDENCE GIVEN 1. SHINGARA SINGH 15,00,000/ - I) CONFIRMATION REGARDING ADVANCE FILED B Y AR II)CREDITOR AN AGRICULTURIST III)WITHDRAWALS FROM AXIS BANK ACCOUNT OF RS. 8,00,000/- ON 15.02.2012 CREDITOR PROVIDED PROOF OF WITHDRAWAL ITA NO.252/CHD/2019 & CO NO.15/CHD/2019 A.Y.2012-13 & ITA NO.253/CHD/2019 & CO NO.16/CHD/2019 A.Y.2012-13 5 AND RS.7,00,000 /- ON 17.02.2012. III) AMOUNT GIVEN TO J ASPREET SINGH ON 17.02.2012 IN CASH . 2. BAGHEL SINGH 20,00,000/ - I) CREDITOR AN AGRICULTURIST II) ADVANCED RS.20,00,000/- ON 10.02.2012 III) THROUGH SALE OF HOUSE ON 06.02.2012 FOR RS.20,00,000/- IN CASH. AGREEMENT TO SELL FOR PROPERTY SOLE IS ATTACHED 3. KAKA SINGH 4,00,000/ - I) AGRICULTURIST II) ADVANCED RS.4,00,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE IN J ANUARY 2012. III) WITHDRAWN 2,50,000/- ON 29.10.2011 FROM ORIENTAL OF BANK OF COMMERCE BHADSON A/C NO. 12612151007811 AND CONFIRMING SUM OF RS.1,50,000/- FROM AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS. COPY OF ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION AGENT SHOWING SALE OF AGRICULTURAL CROP AND BANK STATEMENT IS SUBMITTED. 4. MAJOR SINGH 50,00,000/ - I) AGRICULTURIST OWING 30 ACRES A CLOSE RELATIVE OF THE APPELLANT II) GAVE LOAN OF RS.50,00,000/- TO APPELLANT ON 01.02.2012. III)WITHDRAWN 1,90,000/- FROM BANK ON 17.01.2012 AND RS.49,00,000/- ON 01.02.2012 BOTH FROM BANK LIMIT. COPY OF BANK STATEMENT SUBMITTED. 5. NAIB SINGH 49,00,000/ - I) AGRICULTURIST OWING 30 ACRES A CLOSE RELATIVE OF THE APPELLANT II) GAVE LOAN OF RS.49,00,000/- TO APPELLANT ON 01.02.2012. III)WITHDRAWN 15,00,000/- FROM BANK ON 30.11.2011 AND 34,00,000/- ON 01.12.2011 FROM BANK LIMIT. COPY OF BANK STATEMENT SUBMITTED. ITA NO.252/CHD/2019 & CO NO.15/CHD/2019 A.Y.2012-13 & ITA NO.253/CHD/2019 & CO NO.16/CHD/2019 A.Y.2012-13 6 6. JAGTAR SINGH 20 ,00,000/ - I) AGRICULTURIST OWING 30 ACRES A CLOSE RELATIVE OF THE APPELLANT III) GAVE LOAN OF RS.20,00,000/- TO APPELLANT ON 30.11.2011. IV)WITHDRAWN 25,00,000/- ON 30.11.2011 FROM BANK LIMIT. COPY OF BANK STATEMENT SUBMITTED. THE AO FOUND THAT THE EXPLANATION REGARDING THE SO URCE OF THE CREDITORS AS GIVEN ABOVE WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT PRACTICAL TO KEEP CASH AT HO ME FOR PERIODS RANGING FROM NOVEMBER 2011 TO FEBRUARY 2012 (BETWEEN 4 DAYS TO AROUND 88 DAYS) AND THAT THE APP ELLANT HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY COPY OF HIS OWN BANK ACCOUNT DURIN G ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AO WENT ON TO MAKE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,48,86,000/- TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 7. BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE REITERATED HIS CONTENTION CONSIDERING WHICH THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE HOLDING AS UNDER: DISCUSSION & DETERMINATION: THE LD. AR 'S ARGUMENTS IN THE CASE CENTRE AROUND T HE SUBMISSION THAT HAD DISCHARGED BURDEN OF PROOF REGA RDING THE IDENTITY, SOURCE AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE CREDI TORS QUA THE APPELLANT STANDS DISCHARGED BOTH ON THE BASIS OF TH E INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE SUBMISSIONS IN TH E STATEMENTS OF THE CREDITORS. ONCE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AFFIDAVITS OF ALL THE SIX CREDITORS WAS ESTABLISHED, THE SOURCE OF SOURCE THOUGH NOT REQUIRED TO BE PROVED AS PER LAW HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE APPELLANT AS EACH AMOUNT GIVEN A S CREDIT IS PREDICATED ON EITHER THE SALE OF HOUSE (DULY SUPPORTED W ITH A COPY OF AGREEMENT TO SELL IN EACH CASE) OR ON A CC ACCOUNT OR ON VERIFIABLE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DULY ESTABLISHED ALONG WITH BAN K ACCOUNT SHOWING WITHDRAWALS. THE LD. AO WHILE NOT DISPUTING THE LOANS/ ITA NO.252/CHD/2019 & CO NO.15/CHD/2019 A.Y.2012-13 & ITA NO.253/CHD/2019 & CO NO.16/CHD/2019 A.Y.2012-13 7 OTHER EVIDENCES HAS HELD THAT IS NOT PRACTICAL TO K EEP SUCH LARGE AMOUNTS OF CASH IN THE HOUSE FROM PERIODS RANGING F ROM 4 DAYS TO 4 MONTHS AND THAT NO INTEREST IS CHARGED ON THE AMOUN TS LEADING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE EXPLANATIONS ARE AN AFTERTHOUGH T. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF TH E LD. AR AND THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. AO AND CONTEXTUAL IZED THESE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THAT THE APPELLANT HAS BOU GHT THE SAID AGRICULTURAL LAND ON 28.12.2012 IS MATTER OF RECORD AND UNDISPUTED. THAT THE APPELLANT PRODUCED THE CONFIRMATIONS OF TH E CREDITORS;, IS ALSO ON RECORD AND UNDISPUTED. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R PROVIDES SOURCE OF SOURCE IN THE FORM OF AGREEMENT TO SELL/ CC ACCOUNT DETAILS/ BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE CREDITORS IS ALSO MATTER OF RECORD AND UNDISPUTED. THAT THE LD. AO HAS NOT TAKEN ANY ADVER SE VIEW REGARDING THE CREDITORS ALSO ON RECORD AND UNDISPUTED. THE ID AO HAS NOT PRODUCED A NYTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE APPELLANT OR THE CREDITO RS HAVE ANY OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME OTHER THAN AGRICULTURAL INCOME. TH AT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY OTHER SOURCE FOR THE CASH TO SUGGEST THAT THE CREDITORS HAVE BEEN CLAIMED AS AN AFTERTHOUGHT IS A LSO ON RECORD. IT IS MY CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE EVIDENCES PRODUCE D BY THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE DISCOUNTED ON THE MERE APPREHENS ION THAT THE CASH SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN ADVANCED HAS BEEN WITHDR AWN FROM TO 88 DAYS BEFORE THE DATE OF EXECUTING THE SA LE DEED. IT IS MY CONSIDERED VIEW THAT QUA THE APPELLANT HAS DISCHA RGED THE BURDEN OF PROOF REGARDING ESTABLISHING THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS STANDS DISCHARGED ; AND FURTHER THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO DOUBT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. IT WAS OPEN TO THE AO TO REFER ALL THE CASES OF THE CREDITORS TO THEIR ASSESSING OFFICERS TO MAKE ANY F URTHER INQUIRIES. THE ADDITION, IN MY VIEW IS BASED ON SURMIS ES AND HAS NO LEGS TO STAND ON AND IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETE D. THUS ORDERED. 8. BEFORE US THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF TH E AO STATING THAT EVIDENTLY THE CASH LOANS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND HAD BEEN KEPT FOR A SUBSTANTIA L PERIOD OF TIME BEFORE BEING INVESTED IN PURCHASE OF LAND, WIT H THE WITHDRAWALS HAVING BEEN MADE IN THE MONTHS OF NOVEM BER, DECEMBER, 2011 AND JANUARY, FEBRUARY, 2012, WHILE T HE INVESTMENT WAS MADE ON 28.2.2012. THE LD. DR FURTHE R POINTED OUT THAT NO INTEREST HAD BEEN CHARGED ON TH E CASH ITA NO.252/CHD/2019 & CO NO.15/CHD/2019 A.Y.2012-13 & ITA NO.253/CHD/2019 & CO NO.16/CHD/2019 A.Y.2012-13 8 LOANS ADVANCES AND, THEREFORE, THE AO HAD RIGH TLY CONCLUDED THAT IT WAS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE THAT THE LO ANS ADVANCED BY THESE PERSONS TO THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN UTILIZED FOR PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY. THE LD. DR ACCORDINGL Y SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 9. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HA ND, RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. WE HAVE CA REFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. T HE ISSUE RELATES TO EXPLANATION REGARDING SOURCE OF INVESTME NT IN PURCHASE OF AN AGRICULTURAL LAND AMOUNTING TO RS.1,50,07,500/- WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED H AD BEEN SOURCED FROM THE CASH LOANS OBTAINED FROM SIX PERSO NS AS MENTIONED IN THE TABLE ABOVE. 11. THE LD.CIT(A), WE FIND, HAS GIVEN A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PROVED THE IDENTITY & CREDITWORTHINES S OF THE CREDITORS AND ALSO THE GENUINESS OF THE TRANSACTI ON BY FILING CONFIRMATIONS FROM ALL THE CREDITORS,EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF THE LOAN GIVEN BY THE CREDITORS AS BEING EITHER FRO M SALE OF LAND OR AGRICULTURAL INCOME OR CC ACCOUNT AND SUBST ANTIATING THE SAME WITH EVIDENCE ALSO IN THE FORM OF AGREEMEN T TO SELL LAND,COPY OF ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION AGENT THROUGH WH OM AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE SOLD AND COPY OF CC ACCOUNT WH EREVER APPLICABLE. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ALSO FOUND THE GENUIN ENESS OF ITA NO.252/CHD/2019 & CO NO.15/CHD/2019 A.Y.2012-13 & ITA NO.253/CHD/2019 & CO NO.16/CHD/2019 A.Y.2012-13 9 THE TRANSACTION PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE BY DEMONSTRA TING CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE DONORS BEF ORE GIVING THE LOAN.ALSO HE HAS NOTED THAT THE DONORS CONFIRME D THE TRANSACTION IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE AO. NO NE OF THE ABOVE FACTS HAVE BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE B EFORE US NOR ANY DISCREPANCY POINTED OUT IN THE SAME. IN FAC T WE FIND THAT EVEN THE AO HAS DISPUTED THE FACT THAT THE IDE NTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS WAS ADEQUATELY PR OVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ABOVE. 12. THE ONLY REASON FOR DOUBTING THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION BY THE REVENUE,IS AS RIGHTLY POINTED OU T BY THE LD.CIT(A) THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A TIME GAP OF UPT O 44 DAYS BETWEEN WITHDRAWAL OF CASH BY THE CREDITORS FROM TH EIR BANK ACCOUNT AND ADVANCING THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD ,WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE LD.CIT(A) THAT THE SAME IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE AND CANNOT DISCOUNT THE EVIDEN CES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE,WITH NOTHING ELSE ON RECOR D TO DOUBT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION.AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED HIS ONUS OF PROVING THE GENUINESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND WITH NOTHING ADVER SE BEING BROUGHT ON RECORD /UNEARTHED BY THE REVENUE,THE TRA NSACTION COULD NOT BE DOUBTED FOR THE MERE REASON OF SMALL T IME GAP IN WITHDRAWING CASH BY CREDITORS AND DEPOSIT OF THE SA ME IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.252/CHD/2019 & CO NO.15/CHD/2019 A.Y.2012-13 & ITA NO.253/CHD/2019 & CO NO.16/CHD/2019 A.Y.2012-13 10 13. WE THEREFORE SEE NO REASON TO INTEREFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS.1,48,86,000/ - GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSE D. 14. IN EFFECT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 15. IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF KAMALJEET SINGH IN ITA NO.253/CHD/19,THE FACTS IT W AS POINTED OUT WERE IDENTICAL WITH ADDITION BEING MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN LAND AMOUNTING TO RS.1,48,86,000/-.THAT IN THE SAID CASE ALSO THE ASS ESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT AS FROM LOANS AD VANCED FROM HIS UNCLES DALBIR SINGH AND RANJIT SINGH AND H AD ALSO FILED THEIR CONFIRMATIONS AND PROVED THEIR SOURCE O F SOURCE ALSO.THE SAID CREDITORS HAD ALSO CONFIRMED GIVING L OAN TO THE ASSESSEE IN THEIR STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE AO. THA T THE LD.CIT(A) ,FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED HIS ONUS OF PROVING THE IDENTITY ,CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINEN ESS OF THE TRANSACTION HAD DELETED THE ADDITION MADE, STATING THAT MERE GAP IN WITHDRAWAL OF CASH BY CREDITORS AND DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE OF UPTO 3 TO 11 MONTHS COULD NOT DISCOUNT THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. 16. SINCE ADMITTEDLY THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT IN THE CASE OF JASPREET SINGH IN ITA NO.252/CHD/19,ADJUDICATED ABOVE BY US, OUR DECISION ITA NO.252/CHD/2019 & CO NO.15/CHD/2019 A.Y.2012-13 & ITA NO.253/CHD/2019 & CO NO.16/CHD/2019 A.Y.2012-13 11 RENDERED THEREIN WILL APPLY TO THIS CASE ALSO FOLLO WING WHICH WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDI TION MADE OF RS.1,48,86,000/-ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMEN T. 17. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 18. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AND BOTH THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- # $ % & ' (DIVA SINGH ) ( ANNAPURNA GUPTA) () ' /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ! ' /JUDICIAL MEMBER # /DATED: 23 RD JULY, 2019 * * &) *+,+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ' - / CIT 4. ' - ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. +./ 0 , $0 , 123/4 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. /35# / GUARD FILE