SATHASIVAM PRAKASHKUMAR, TIRUVALLUR V. ITO, NCW - 7 (2), CHENNAI

ITA 2652/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1166 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 30-06-2021
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 18-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 68; 6; 143(3); 133(6)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI , , , BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. I.T.A. NO.: 2652/CHNY/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2016-17 SATHASIVAM PRAKASHKUMAR, C-10, 3 RD FLOOR, A P ABINAV APARTMENT, KAVIMANI SALAI, MAGOPPAIR WEST, TIRUVALLUR 600 037. [PAN: AWMPP 9517D] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD 7(2), CHENNAI 4. ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) & ' / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. K. BALASUBRAMANIAN, ADVOCATE *+& ' / RESPONDENT BY : MS. R. ANITA, JCIT ' /DATE OF HEARING : 30.06.2021 ' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.07.2021 / O R D E R PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-7, CHENNAI IN ITA NO. 104/CIT (A)-7/2018-19 DATED 27.06.2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17. :-2-: ITA NO.2652/CHNY/2019 2. MR SATHASIVAM PRAKASH KUMAR, THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, E-FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 AD MITTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 5,55,380/-. ON RECEIPT OF AIR INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE HUGE DEPOSITS INTO THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNTS ETC, THE A O OBTAINED INFORMATION U/S. 133(6) AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE HUGE CASH DEPOSIT AT RS. 95,45,400/-. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE A O THAT ONE MR . PRASANTH, RESIDING AT MOGAPPAIR WEST HAS REQUESTED HIS FRIEND MR. P. GOPI VARADHAN, RELATIONSHIP MANAGER OF INDUS IND BANK TO FACILITATE CASH DEPOS IT OF RS. 55 LAKHS IN TO HIS ACCOUNT AND FURTHER TO TAKE A DD IN FAVOUR OF 1. S. SRIDHARAN, 2. T. SETHNA, 3. S. SUNDARAMOORTHY, 4. P.L. MANJUNATH. BASED ON HIS REQUEST, MR. P. GOPIVARADHAN HAD APPROACHED HIM TO FAVOUR MR. S. PRASANTH TO DEPOSIT IN ONE OF HIS BANK ACCOUNT BEARING A/C. NO. 159444444096 W ITH INDUSLND BANK, MOGAPPAIR BRANCH. THE SAID CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 55 LAKHS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT DOES NOT BELONG TO HIM AND IT BELONGS TO MR. S. PRA SANTH . THE A O RECORDED A SWORN STATEMENT FROM MR. PRASANTH AND BASED ON THAT STATEMENT ISSUED SUMMONS TO FOUR PERSONS FROM WHOM SHRI. PRASANTH SWORNED TO HAVE TAKEN THE IMPUGNED CASH AND ALSO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI. PRASANTH TO COORDINATE WITH EACH OTHER AND PRODUCE ALL THE FOUR PERSONS BE FORE HIM. SINCE, THESE FOUR PERSONS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE HIM AND THE AS SESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE IMPUGNED CASH DEPOSITS ARE NOT HIS CASH, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED SUCH CASH DEPOSITS AS AN UNEXPLAINED CASH CRE DIT U/S. 68 AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN A PPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE :-3-: ITA NO.2652/CHNY/2019 LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THAT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL WITH FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. LEARNED AO ERRED IN ADDING RS. 55,00,000 U/S. 6 8 BEING CASH DEPOSIT IN APPELLANTS BANK A/CIT(A) WITH INDUS IND BANK AND T HE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION. 1.2 LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT AO HER SELF HAS BROUGHT OUT IN THE ASST. ORDER FACTS, ON THE BASIS OF SWORN STATEM ENTS OF (I) APPELLANT, (II) MR. PRASHANTH [WHO MADE CASH DEPOSIT INTO APPELLANTS A BOVE BANK A/C] AND (III) MR. P. GOPIVARDHAN [RELATIONSHIP MANAGER OF ABOVE B ANK WHO CONNIVED IN DEPOSITING ABOVE AMOUNT IN APPELLANTS BANK A/C AND WHO ISSUED 4 DRAFTS FOR MR. PRASHANTH] AND THUS APPELLANT HAVING PROVED THE SOURCE FOR THE DEPOSIT BY PRODUCING THE ABOVE 2 PERSONS BEFORE AO, CIT(A) ERR ED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION U/S. 68 IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. 1.3 APPELLANT HAVING PROVED THE SOURCE, HAVING PROD UCED THE 2 PERSONS CONNECTED WITH THE TRANSACTION, CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO PRODUCE THE PERSONS IN WHOSE FAVOUR 4 DRAFTS WERE ISSUED BY THE BANK TO TH E EXCLUSION OF THE APPELLANT, EVEN THOUGH APPELLANT FURNISHED FULL NAM E AND ADDRESS OF THE 4 PERSONS AND IN FACT SOME OF THEM ALSO HAVE APPEARED BEFORE AO. 1.4 INSTEAD OF PROCEEDING WITH MR. PRASHANTH [WHO M ADE CASH DEPOSIT INTO APPELLANTS ABOVE BANK A/C AND WHO ACCEPTED THE SAM E AS HIS MONEY] AND ASSESSING THE SUM IN HIS HANDS WHOSE PAN WITH COMPL ETE ADDRESS WERE GIVEN TO THE AO AND APPELLANT UNDERSTANDS THAT THE VERY S AME AO IS HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THIS PERSON, THE LATTER ERRED IN ADDING THIS SUM FOR THE ONLY REASON THAT THE 4 PERSONS DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE HER INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT SOME OF THEM HAVE APPEARED BEFORE AO. 1.5 LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SHE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION WHILE ANSWERS TO HER CONCLUSION, UNDER ITEMS (1) TO (7) OF HER ORDER, ARE IN THE SWORN STATEMENT REPRODUCED IN THE ASST. ORDER ITSELF. FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE AND THOSE THAT MAY BE ADDUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING HONBLE ITAT BE PLEASED TO DELETE T HE ADDITION MADE U/S. 68 AND RENDER JUSTICE. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE OF THE ITAT TO FILE ADDITIONAL GROUND/EVIDENCE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. :-4-: ITA NO.2652/CHNY/2019 3. THE CASE WAS POSTED FOR HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CO NFERENCE. THE LD. AR INVITING OUR ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASS ED IN THE CASE OF SHRI S. PRASANTH U/S. 143(3) R.W. 147 DATED 02.12.2019 FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE A O OF SHRI S. PRASA NTH HAS HELD IN THAT ORDER THAT THE SOURCES OF THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 55 L AKHS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI. S. PRAKASH KUMAR HAS BEEN EXPLAINED AND CO MPLETED HIS ASSESSMENT BY ACCEPTING THE INCOME RETURNED BY HIM (SHRI. S. PRAK ASH). SINCE, THE SOURCES OF CASH ARE EXPLAINED BY SHRI. S. PRAKASH WHICH IS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT, THE ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF SHRI. SADASIVAM PRAKASH KUMAR, THE ASSESSEE, IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AS HE HAS COMPLIED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND SUSTAINING ANY ADDITION WOULD AMO UNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION AND HENCE PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL BE ALL OWED. 4. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT (A) . AND RECORDED A STATEMENT MR. PRASANTH WAS A LSO SUMMONED AND A STATEMENT RECORDED FROM HIM ALSO EXTRACT OF THE RE LEVANT PORTION OF MR. PRASANTHS STATEMENT IS REPRODUCED FOR READY REFERE NCE BELOW Q.NO.1 I AM SHOWING ONE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY MR. SADASIVAM P RAKASH KUMAR DATED 03.11.2018 TO THE EFFECT THAT DURING THE FY 2015-16 , YOU HAVE INSTRUCTED YOUR FRIEND MR. P. GOPIVARADHAN TO FACILITATE TO DEPOSIT A SUM OF RS. 55 LAKHS IN CASH IN A BANK ACCOUNT TO TAKE DD IN FAVOUR OF (A) S. SR IDHARAN, (B) T. SETHNA, (C) S. SUNDARAMOORTHY, (D) P.L. MANJUNATHA? AND: YES Q.NO.2 WHAT IS THE SOURCE FOR THE CASH YOU HAVE HAN DED OVER TO MR. S. PRAKASH KUMAR THROUGH MR. P. GOPIVARADHAN? :-5-: ITA NO.2652/CHNY/2019 ANS: THIS MONEY IS BELONGING TO THE ABOVE SAID PERS ONS WHO ARE DOING CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS IN TRICHY. Q.NO.3 WHO ARE THE FOUR PERSONS AS MENTIONED IN QUE S NO. 1. HOW ARE THEY RELATED TO YOU? WHAT PURPOSE THE DD HAS BEEN TAKEN ON THEM? ANS: THEY ARE MY FAMILY FRIENDS. THEY HAVE HANDED OVER CASH TO EXECUTE A PROJECT IN CHENNAI. BUT THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. SO, I JUST RETURNED BACK THE MONEY THROUGH DD. Q.NO. 5 FOR HOW MUCH MONEY DD HAS BEEN TAKEN ON EAC H PERSON? ANS: RS. 13.75 LAKHS TO EACH PERSON Q.NO.6 WHETHER THEY ARE ALL ASSESSED TO TAX? IF SO , THEIR ASSESSMENT PARTICULARS ANS: THEY ARE ASSESSED TO TAX. Q.NO.7 AS PER THE INCOME TAX ACT, NO PERSON DEALS I N CASH MORE THAN RS.20,000/- PER TRANSACTION? AS A BUSINESSMAN YOU SHOULD KNOW THE ACT AND RULES. WHY YOU HAVE RECEIVED IN CASH FROM THOSE PE RSONS THAT TOO A HUGE SUM 13.75 LAKHS FROM EACH PERSON? ANS: TO EXECUTE A CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS IN CHENNAI, THEY HAVE APPROACHED ME AND GIVEN ME THE CASH. Q.NO.8 YOU ARE STATING THAT THEY ARE IN TRICHY, HOW DID THEY HANDED OVER THE HUGE CASH IN CHENNAI? ANS: THAT DO NOT KNOW. THEY MAY BROUGHT WHEN THEY COME TO CHENNAI OR FROM THEIR RELATIVES AND FRIENDS CIRCLE RESIDING IN CHEN NAI THEY COULD HAVE TAKEN THE MONEY AND GIVEN TO ME. Q.NO.9 CAN YOU PRODUCE BEFORE ME THOSE FOUR PERSONS ? ANS: I WILL CONFIRM Q.NO. 10 PLEASE FURNISH THEIR ADDRESS, PHONE NO., E -MAIL ID AND THEIR ASSESSMENT PARTICULARS? ANS: AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE AO ASKED MR. PRASANTH TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF THE 4 PERSONS IN WHOSE FAVOUR DDS WERE TAKEN. HOWEVER, ONLY ADDRESSES WERE FURNIS HED. ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SUMMONS TO THE FOUR PERSONS ALSO BUT NO ONE APPEARED. HENCE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO MAKE THE ADDITION IN APPELLANTS HANDS AS HE HAD FAILED TO CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISH THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS BELONG TO OTHER PERSONS. :-6-: ITA NO.2652/CHNY/2019 IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE AR SUBMITTED THE NAMES OF THE FOUR PERSONS WITH DD NUMBER AND AMOUNTS PAID AGAINST NAME IS BEL OW (1) S. SRIDHARAN, (2) T. SETHNA, (3) S. SUNDARAMOORTHY, (4) P.L. MANJUNATH AS PER THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, APPELLANT HAS DISCHARGED HIS PRIMARY ONUS OF PROVING THAT THE SAID CASH OF RS. 55 LAKHS BELONGS TO HIM. AFTER CAREFULLY CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION MADE AND THE A O'S ORDER THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSION IS ARRIVED AT: 1. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT EXPLAINED WHY HIS BANK ACCOUN T WAS USED AS A CONDUCT FOR ACCOMMODATION ENTRY OF THE IMPUGNED A MOUNT 2. APPELLANT HAS NOT EXPLAINED WHY THE NEED AROSE FOR DEPOSITING CASH INTO HIS BANK ACCOUNT, WHICH APPARENTLY WAS USED TO MAKE PAYMENT TO FOUR UNKNOWN PERSONS. 3. IF MONEY BELONGED TO MR. PRASANTH WHY WAS HIS BANK ACCOUNT NOT USED FOR THE CASH DEPOSIT? 4. WHICH PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN WILL RISK THE USE OF IS B ANK ACCOUNT TO PARK OTHER PEOPLES MONEY? 5. SIMPLY FILING SELF-SERVING AFFIDAVITS DOES NOT ABSO LVE THE APPELLANT FROM EXPLAINING THE REAL SOURCE OF CASH 6. THERE IS NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO EXPLAIN THE T RAIL OF CASH IN THIS ASSESSEE. THE FOUR PERSONS WHO RECEIVED THE PAYMEN TS IN DD ARE REAL PERSONS OR DUMMY PERSONS? 7. WHY THE NEED TO MAKE A PAYMENT TO THEM? WHAT WAS TH E URGENCY? THERE ARE NO DETAILS OF THEIR PAN, IT RETURNS IN FA CT NON RESPONDED TO THE AO'S SUMMONS TO THEM EITHER. THIS LEAVES GL ARING LOOPHOLES IN THE APPELLANTS CLAIMS THAT THE CASH OF RS. 55 L AKHS DID NOT BELONG TO HIM. IN THE RESULT, I AM NOT CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANAT ION OF THE APPELLANT. THERE IS THEREFORE NO REQUIREMENT TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. :-7-: ITA NO.2652/CHNY/2019 AND SUBMITTED THAT IT IS CLEAR FROM THE EXTRACTED SWORN STATEMENT OF SHRI. S. PRASANTH THAT THE SOURCES OF THE IMPUGNED CAS H DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WERE BELONGING TO 1. S. SRIDHARAN, 2. T. SETHNA, 3. S. SUNDARAMOORTHY, 4. P.L. MANJUNATH , WHO WERE IN CONSTRUCTION BUSIN ESS IN TRICHY AND THEY HAVE HANDED OVER CASH TO SHRI. PRASANTH TO EXECUTE THE PROJECT IN CHENNAI. SINCE, IT DID NOT HAPPEN, HE RETURNED BACK RS. 13.75 LAKHS TO EACH OF THEM THROUGH DD. WHEN THE A O ASKED THAT WHEN THEY ARE ALL IN TRICHY AND SHRI S. PRASANTH BEING IN CHENNAI, HOW DID THEY HAND OVER CASH, HE STATED THAT FROM THEIR RELATIVES AND FRIENDS CIRCLE RESIDING IN CHENNAI THEY COULD HAVE TAKEN THE MONEY AND GIVEN TO HIM AND THEY ARE ALL ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX ETC. WHEN THE AO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS SHRI. PRASANTH TO PRODUCE ALL T HOSE PERSONS BEFORE HIM NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR SHRI. PRASANTH PROD UCED THEM BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, IT IS SEEN FROM THE AS SESSMENT ORDER OF SHRI PRASANTH, RELIED ON BY THE LD. AR, THAT SHRI PRAS ANTH HAS TAKEN A DIFFERENT STORY BEFORE HIS A O THAT THE SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS ARE FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BELONGING TO HIM, HIS SI STER AND MOTHER. HE TOOK ADVANCE FROM THE ABOVE FOUR PERSONS IN THE EARLIE R ASSESSMENT YEAR AND SINCE, THE PROJECT DID NOT MATERIALIZE THOSE AMOUNTS WE RE REPAID TO THEM ETC. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT SHRI. PRASANTH HAS TAKEN TOTALL Y A CONTRADICTORY POSITION BEFORE HIS A O, FROM THE POSITION HE HAS SWORNED BEFORE THE A O OF THIS ASSESSEE, WHICH IS EXTRACTED, SUPRA. INVITING OUR ATTENTION TO THE PAPERBOOK , WHEREIN THE COPIES OF INDUSIND BANK STATEMENTS ARE PLACED , THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THE NARRATION IN THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE REVEALS THAT CASH DEPOSIT :-8-: ITA NO.2652/CHNY/2019 BRANCH CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS ON 21.4.2015 . THUS, IT INDICATES THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO IN CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS . FURT HER , IT IS CLEAR FROM THE BANK STATEMENT THAT SHRI PRASANTH KUMAR SAMUTHRAVADIVE L WAS ALSO HOLDING ACCOUNT WITH INDUSIND BANK AND IT IS CLEAR FROM HIS STATEMENT THAT HE DID NOT HAVE SUCH HUGE CASH BALANCE ON 21.4.2015 AND FURT HER HIS STATEMENT HAS REVEALS HUGE CASH DEPOSITS WERE MADE IN JULY AND SE PTEMBER 2015 ALSO. THEREFORE, THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT WHEN SHRI PRA SANTH KUMAR SAMUTHRAVADIVEL HIMSELF IS HAVING BANK ACCOUNT WI TH THE SAME BANK, WHAT WAS THE NEED TO RECEIVE AND HOLD SUCH HUGE AMOUNT IN THE CASH FORM WITH HIM AND WHY IT HAS TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT INSTEAD OF IN HIS OWN ACCOUNT ETC HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED/ EXAMINED AN D SO ALSO THE SOURCES OF OTHER DEPOSITS . THEREFORE, THE LD DR SUBMITTED TH AT THE IMPUGNED CASH TRAIL IS NOT EXPLAINED / EXAMINED SHRI. PRASANTH HAS TAKEN M ANY VERSIONS. IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER ESTABLISHED THAT THE IMPUGNED CASH DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT IS NOT HIS CASH NOR SHRI. PR ASANTH PROVED THE POSITION HE HAS TAKEN IN THE SWORN STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE A O BY PRODUCING 1. S. SRIDHARAN, 2. T. SETHNA, 3. S. SUNDARAMOORTHY, 4. P .L. MANJUNATH BEFORE THE A O. THEREFORE, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED REASONING AND THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR SHRI. PR ASANTH HAS SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED THE SOURCES OF THE IMPUGNED CASH CREDIT S, THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE SOURCES OR THE CREDITORS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THEREFORE, THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIO N MADE U/S. 68 AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD CIT(A) IS IN ORDER AND HENCE PLEADED T HAT THE ORDER OF THE LOWER :-9-: ITA NO.2652/CHNY/2019 AUTHORITIES BE CONFIRMED. PER CONTRA, THE LD. AR S UBMITTED THAT IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 7(1) OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 DATED 21.06.2021, THE AO CONFIRMED THAT S. SRIDHARAN, (B) T. SETHNA, (C) S. SUNDARAMOORTHY, (D) P.L. MANJUNATH APPEARED BEFORE THE A O AND FURNISHED CONFIRMATION LETTERS WHILE COMPLETING THE REOPENED ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF S HRI. S. PRASANTH. IN RESPECT OF MR. T. SETHNA, CONFIRMATION LETTER WAS NOT SUBMI TTED. THEREFORE SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE WAS MADE. HOWEVER, THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THEY HAVE APPEA RED BEFORE THE A O OF SHRI. S. PRASANTH AND NOT BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) OF THE ASSESSEE , SHRI. SADA SIVAM PRAKASH KUMAR. 5. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT MATERIAL. SHRI. SADASIVAM PRAKASH KUMAR , THE ASSESSEE, EXPL AINED BEFORE THE A O THAT ONE MR. PRASANTH, DEPOSITED CASH OF RS. 55 LAKHS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND FURTHER TO TOOK DD IN FAVOUR OF 1. S. SRIDHARAN, 2. T. SETHNA, 3. S. SUNDARAMOORTHY, 4. P.L. MANJUNATH. THE SAID CASH D EPOSITS DO NOT BELONG TO HIM AND IT BELONGS TO MR. S. PRASANTH . THE A O RE CORDED A SWORN STATEMENT FROM MR. PRASANTH IN WHICH HE SWORNED THAT THE SOURCES OF THE IMPUGNED CASH DEPOSITS WERE BELONGING TO 1. S. SRIDHARAN, 2 . T. SETHNA, 3. S. SUNDARAMOORTHY, 4. P.L. MANJUNATH, WHO WERE IN CON STRUCTION BUSINESS IN TRICHY AND THEY HAVE HANDED OVER CASH TO SHRI. PRASANTH TO EXECUTE THE PROJECT IN CHENNAI. SINCE, IT DID NOT HAPPEN, HE RETURNED BAC K RS. 13.75 LAKHS TO EACH OF THEM THROUGH DD AND THEY ARE ALL ASSESSED TO I NCOME TAX ETC . BASED ON THAT STATEMENT, THE A O ISSUED SUMMONS TO FOUR PE RSONS FROM WHOM SHRI. :-10-: ITA NO.2652/CHNY/2019 PRASANTH SWORNED TO HAVE TAKEN THE IMPUGNED CASH A ND ALSO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI. PRASANTH TO COORDINATE WITH EA CH OTHER AND PRODUCE ALL THE FOUR PERSONS BEFORE HIM. SINCE, THESE FOUR PERSONS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE HIM AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THA T THE IMPUGNED CASH DEPOSITS ARE NOT HIS CASH, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED SUCH CASH DEPOSITS AS AN UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 AND COMPLETED THE A SSESSMENT. ON APPEAL, THE LD CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL GIVING THE REASONS WHICH ARE EXTRACTED SUPRA. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR PLEADS THAT THE A O OF SHRI S . PRASANTH HAS HELD IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE SOURCES OF THE CASH DE POSITS OF RS. 55 LAKHS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI. S. PRAKASH KUMAR HAS BEEN EXPLAINED AND COMPLETED HIS ASSESSMENT BY ACCEPTING THE INCOME RE TURNED BY HIM (SHRI. S. PRAKASH). SINCE, THE SOURCES OF IMPUGNED CASH ARE EXPLAINED BY SHRI. S. PRAKASH WHICH IS ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT, T HE ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF SHRI. SADASIVAM PRAKASH KUMAR, THE ASSESSE E, IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD DR POINTED OUT THAT SHRI. PR ASANTH HAS TAKEN A CONTRADICTORY STAND BEFORE HIS AO THEN WHAT WAS SWO RNED BY HIM BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THIS ASSESSEE AND FROM THE MA TERIAL, SUPRA, POINTED OUT THAT SHRI. S. PRASANTH HAS TAKEN MANY VERSIONS, CASH TRA ILS ARE NOT EXPLAINED OR PROVED, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR SHRI. S. PRASANTH HAS SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED ALL THE INGREDIENTS REQUIRED U/S. 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND THEREFORE, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE IN ORDER. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR SHRI. S. PRASANTH HAS EXPLAINED THE IM PUGNED CREDITS NEITHER BEFORE THE AO NOR BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS REQUIR ED U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. :-11-: ITA NO.2652/CHNY/2019 HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL ARE TO BE REMIT TED BACK TO THE AO FOR A FRESH EXAMINATION. THE ASSESSEE /SHRI. S. PRASANTH, AS T HE CASE MAY BE, SHALL PLACE ALL MATERIAL BASED ON WHICH THEY RELY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CONTENTIONS BEFORE THE AO AND COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS OF THE AO IN ACCORD ANCE WITH THE LAW. THE AO AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSE E/SHRI. S. PRASANTH, AS THE CASE MAY BE, AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL ET C PLACED BEFORE HIM SHALL PASS AN ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 06 TH JULY, 2021 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( ) (V. DURGA RAO) $ %/ JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- ( ) (S. JAYARAMAN) % /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, 0 /DATED: 06 TH JULY, 2021 JPV '*2343 /COPY TO: 1. & / APPELLANT 2. *+& /RESPONDENT 3. 5 ) ( /CIT(A) 4. 5 /CIT 5. 3* /DR 6. /GF