SHRI GHANSHYAM AGRAWAL, RAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), RAIPUR

ITA 266/RPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3206 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 28-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT M JAIN
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Search and seizure; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ रायप ु र मɅ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 266/RPR/2017 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Ghanshyam Agrawal (Prop. M/s. Mohan Marketing) 1, Mohan Campus, Kapa Raipur (C.G.) Pin-492 007 PAN: ACOPA4853R .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ......Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Amit M Jain, CA Revenue by : Shri G.N Singh, DR स ु नवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 10.06.2022 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 2 Shri Ghanshyam Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1) ITA No. 266/RPR/2017 आदेश / ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals)-I, Raipur dated 01.09.2017, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) dated 28.03.2015 for assessment year 2012-13. Before us the assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: GROUND NO.1 The ld CIT (Appeal)-I, Raipur (C.G.) erred in law as well as in fact while sustaining the addition of Rs.2831600/- made by the AO without considering the Additional Evidence filed under rule 46A of Income Tax Rules. The sustaining of the addition is had in law and is liable to be deleted. GROUND NO.2 The ld CIT (Appeal)-I, Raipur (C.G.) erred in law as well as in fact while sustaining the addition of Rs.19,60,000/- made by the AO on account of cash deposits in bank without considering the Additional Evidence that two cash payments were received against sale of property which amounted to Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.12,34,600/- respectively. This cash was deposited in the saving bank account of the assessee. The sustaining of the addition is bad in law and is liable to be deleted. GROUND NO.3 The ld CIT (Appeal)-I, Raipur (C.G.) erred in law as well as in fact while not adjudicating Ground No.8 of the Grounds of Appeals filed with form No.35 which read as under — 3 Shri Ghanshyam Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1) ITA No. 266/RPR/2017 "The Assessing Office erred in law as well as in fact which making an addition of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of disallowance out of improvement expenses on income from Long term Capital Gain. The same is not sustainable in law." GROUND NO.4 (New Ground was raised at the time of hearing) The ld CIT (Appeal)-I, Raipur (C.G.) erred in law as well as in fact while sustaining the addition of Rs.1,00,000/- made by the AO on account of disallowance out of various expenditure on adhoc basis. The sustaining of the addition is bad in law and is liable to be deleted. GROUND NO.5 The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or alter any ground or grounds at the time of hearing.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee who is engaged in the business of a wholesale trader had filed his return of income for AY 2012-13 on 31.10.2013, declaring an income of Rs.4,31,250/-. Return of income filed by the assessee was initially processed as such u/s.143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s.143(2) of the Act. 3. Assessment was, thereafter, framed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) dated 28.03.2015 after, inter alia, making the following additions /disallowances: Sr. No. Particulars Amount 4 Shri Ghanshyam Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1) ITA No. 266/RPR/2017 4. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without any success in so far the aforesaid additions were concerned. 5. The assesee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by them to drive home their respective contentions. 1. Addition towards unexplained credit in assessee’s capital account as a proprietor of M/s. Mohan Marketing, Raipur Rs.28,31,600/- 2. Addition towards unexplained cash deposit in Savings bank account No.30613690596 with SBI, Branch :Pandri, Raipur Rs.19,60,000/- 5 Shri Ghanshyam Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1) ITA No. 266/RPR/2017 7. Before us the assessee has assailed the impugned order of the CIT(Appeals) on two folds grounds, viz. (i) addition of unexplained cash deposit: Rs.19,60,000/-; and (ii) addition of unexplained credit in the assessee’s capital account as a proprietor of M/s. Mohan Marketing: Rs.28,31,600/-. We shall deal with the aforesaid issues in a chronological manner as under: - A. Re : Unexplained cash deposits of Rs.19,60,000/- 8. As is discernible from the records, the assessee during the year under consideration had made cash deposits of Rs.19.60 lacs in his savings bank account No. 30613690596 with SBI, Branch: Pandri, Raipur over the period, i.e, 07.10.2011 to 01.03.2012. As the assessee had failed to substantiate the nature and source of the aforesaid cash deposits, therefore, the A.O had held the same as unexplained and added the entire amount to the returned income of the assessee. On appeal, the assessee in order to impress upon the CIT(Appeals) that the cash deposits in question were made out of his explained sources filed before him a copy of his “cash book” as an additional evidence U/rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. It was claimed by the assessee that 6 Shri Ghanshyam Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1) ITA No. 266/RPR/2017 as he in the course of assessment proceedings was taken unwell, therefore, the aforesaid documentary evidence could not be produced before the A.O. On a perusal of the aforesaid “cash Book”, it was observed by the CIT(Appeals) that the assessee had on 03.09.2011 claimed to have received an amount of Rs.15 lacs and Rs.12,34,600/- on sale of land from the purchasers, viz. Smt. Sunita Agrawal and Smt. Shikha Singhal. However, the CIT(Appeals) was of the view that as the assessee had failed to substantiate both his claim of having received the aforementioned amounts as well as the creditworthiness of the aforesaid parties, therefore, he declined to accept the aforesaid unsubstantiated claim of the assessee. Backed by his aforesaid observations the CIT(Appeals) finding no merit in the claim of the assessee had upheld the addition of Rs.19.60 lac made by the A.O. 9. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue in question in the backdrop of the contentions advanced by the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties. Our attention was drawn by the Ld. AR to the copy of the “cash book” of the assessee that was filed before the CIT(Appeals) as an additional evidence U/rule. 46A of the Income 7 Shri Ghanshyam Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1) ITA No. 266/RPR/2017 Tax Rules, 1962. On a perusal of the aforesaid “cash book”, we find that the assessee had claimed that cash amounting to Rs.19.60 lac that was over the year deposited by him in his savings bank account No. 30613690596, SBI, Branch: Pandri, Raipur was sourced out of two streams, viz. (i) out of cash received on sale of property from Smt. Sunita Agrawal and Smt. Shikha Singhal : Rs.12,50,000/-; and (ii) cash deposit out of available CIH and withdrawals made from saving bank A/C No.2966000100067360 with PNB, Branch: Anupam nagar : Rs.7,10,000/-. For the sake of clarity the aforesaid claim of the assessee as can be deciphered from the details filed by him by placing on record a chart, at Page 87 of APB, is culled out as under: Date of deposit Amount of deposit Source of deposit 07.10.2011 350000 The assessee has sold two immovable property during the year, one to Suneeta Agrawal and another one to Sheekha Singhal. The assessee has received cash of Rs.15,00,000/- from Sunita Agrwwal and Rs.12,34,600/- from Sheekha Agrawal on 03.09.2011. The cash was deposited out of the said cash. Copy of cash book enclosed. 07.10.2011 500000 12.10.2011 400000 15.10.2011 160000 The cash has been deposited out of available cash in hand and amount withdrawn from PNB savings bank account on 09.02.2012 of Rs.19,50,000/- and on 15.02.2012 of Rs.160000/-. Copy of cash book enclosed. 17.02.2012 350000 01.03.2012 200000 8 Shri Ghanshyam Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1) ITA No. 266/RPR/2017 Total 1960000 In so far the claim of the assessee that the amount of Rs.12.50 lac (supra) was deposited by him out of cash available with him out of the sale proceeds of property to S/smt. Sunita Agrawal and Sikha Singhal is concerned, we find that he had in order to fortify his aforesaid claim placed on record copies of the sale deeds, viz. (i) sale deed of land dated 23.09.2011 situated at Kharsia Road, Ambikapur (½ share of the assessee); and (ii) sale deed of land dated 23.09.2011 of land situated at Kharsia Road, Ambikapur (½ share of the assessee). At this stage, we may herein observe that the assessee had duly accounted for the LTCG arising on sale of the aforesaid land in his returned of income. Our attention was drawn by the Ld. AR to the copies of registered sale deeds dated 23.09.2011 of the aforesaid lands, Page 97 to 107 of APB, which evidences the receipt of an amount of Rs.12,34,600/- and Rs.15,00,000/- in cash by the assessee prior to the execution of the said respective sale deeds. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the cash deposits aggregating to Rs.12.50 lac by the assessee in his savings bank account No.30613690596 with 9 Shri Ghanshyam Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1) ITA No. 266/RPR/2017 SBI, Branch: Pandri over the period, i.e., 07.10.2011 to 12.10.2011 could safely be held to have been sourced out of the cash available with the assessee out of the sale proceeds of the aforesaid lands. 10. After having given a thoughtful consideration, we find substantial force in the claim of the ld. AR that the cash deposits to the extent of Rs.12.50 lac made by the assessee in his bank account, i.e, over the period 07.10.2011 to 12.10.2011 could safely be held to have been made out of the cash-in-hand that was available with him on the sale of the aforesaid lands vide registered sale deeds, dated 23.09.2011. We, may, herein observe, that the fact of having received cash aggregating to Rs.27,34,600/- [Rs. 15,00,000/- (+) Rs. 12,34,600/-] by the assessee a/w. the other co-owner (both having equal ½ share) is duly mentioned in the respective registered sale deeds to which our attention was drawn by the Ld. AR. Considering the proximity of time of having received the aforesaid cash sale proceeds, i.e., prior to date of execution of the sale deeds dated 23.09.2011, and the cash deposits in question aggregating to Rs.12.50 lac (supra), we are of the considered view that in the absence of any material which would evidence that the cash received by 10 Shri Ghanshyam Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1) ITA No. 266/RPR/2017 the assessee on sale of the aforesaid lands was utilized/invested somewhere else, his explanation merits acceptance. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations find favour with the claim of the assessee in so far the source of the cash deposit of Rs.12.50 lac (supra) is concerned. 11. Adverting to the source of the balance cash deposit of Rs.7.10 lac in the assessee’s savings bank account No. 30613690596 with SBI, Branch: Pandri, we find that the assessee had come forth with two folds explanations as regards the same, viz. (i) out of withdrawals made from saving bank account No. 2966000100067360 with PNB, Branch :Anupamnagar : Rs.3.55 lakhs; and (ii) out of the available cash-in-hand. In order to support his aforesaid contentions, the Ld. AR had drawn our attention to the copy of the assessee’s “cash book”. On a perusal of the assessee’s savings bank account with PNB, Branch: Anupamnagar, we find that admittedly an amount of Rs.1.60 lac was withdrawn by the assessee vide cheque No.829063 on 15.02.2012. On a perusal of the SB A/c No. 2966000100067360 with PNB, Branch :Anupamnagar, we find that the aforesaid cash withdrawal of Rs. 1.60 lac by the assessee was 11 Shri Ghanshyam Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1) ITA No. 266/RPR/2017 sourced out of an amount of Rs. 1.60 lac that was transferred on 14.02.2012 from his PNB Home Loan A/c No. 1391. As the assessee on the very same date, i.e., on 15.02.2012 had made a cash deposit of Rs.1.60 lac in his savings bank account with SBI, Branch: Pandri, therefore, in absence of any material evidencing utilization/investment of the aforesaid amount in question somewhere else, we find no reason as to why the explanation of the assessee in so far the source of cash deposit of Rs.1.60 lac on 15.02.2012 in his savings bank account with SBI, Branch: Pandri is concerned is not to be accepted. On a more or less similar footing, it is the claim of the assessee that the balance cash deposits, viz. (i) Rs.3.50 lac on 17.02.2012; and (ii) Rs.2,00,000/- on 01.03.2012 were sourced out of the cash withdrawals of Rs.1.95 lac on 09.02.2012 from his savings bank account with PNB, Branch : Anupamnagar a/w. cash in hand available with him as on the said date. In order to fortify his aforesaid contention the ld AR had drawn our attention to the assessee’s ‘cash book’. At this stage, we may herein observe that the aforesaid cash withdrawal of Rs. 1.95 lac by the assessee was sourced out of an amount of Rs. 2 lac that was received 12 Shri Ghanshyam Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1) ITA No. 266/RPR/2017 by him towards home loan disbursement on the same date, i.e, on 09.02.2012. On a perusal of the records, we find that in so far the availability of cash-in-hand of Rs.1.95 lac with the assessee is concerned, the same in absence of any material which would evidence the utilization of the said amount for any other purpose can safely be held to have been available with the assesee for explaining the source of cash deposits to the said extent in his savings bank account with PNB, Branch: Anupamnagar. However, the explanation of the assessee that the balance amount of cash deposits of Rs.3.55 lac [Rs.5.50 lac (-) Rs.1.95 lac) was sourced out of the available cash-in-hand as per the “cash book”, we are afraid that the same cannot be accepted on the very face of it. At this stage, we may herein observe, that though it is the claim of the assessee that the cash deposits made by him in his savings bank account with SBI, Branch : Pandri are duly disclosed in his “cash book”, but then, the veracity of the said “cash book” is not free from doubts. One of the reason which prompts up for not accepting the contents of the “cash book” which was filed by the assessee for the first time as an additional evidence U/rule. 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 before 13 Shri Ghanshyam Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1) ITA No. 266/RPR/2017 the CIT(Appeals), is that his claim of having received the entire sale proceeds of Rs.27,34,600/- [Rs. 15,00,000/- (+) Rs. 12,34,600/-] on 03.09.2011 on sale of the property at Kharsia Road, Ambikapur in which he was holding ½ share does not inspire much of confidence. We, say so, for the reason that now when the aforesaid property had been sold by the assessee a/w. another co-owner Shri Sajjan Kumar Agrawal, therefore, his claim of having received the entire amount of cash sale proceeds of Rs.27,34,600/- [Rs.12,34,600/- (+) Rs.15,00,000/-] on 03.09.2011, i.e., prior to execution of the respective sale deeds, with no part of the same being received by the other co-owner, viz. Shri. Sajjan Kumar Aggarwal cannot be accepted in the absence of any material evidencing the same. Be that as it may, we are of a strong conviction that as the assessee had not been able to substantiate on the basis of documentary evidences proving to the hilt the source of the balance cash deposits of Rs.3.55 lakhs (supra), therefore, we uphold the addition made by the A.O to the said extent. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.2 raised by the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 14 Shri Ghanshyam Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1) ITA No. 266/RPR/2017 12. We shall now deal with the grievance of the assessee that the CIT(Appeals) had erred in sustaining an addition of Rs.28,31,600/- qua the amounts credited in the assessee’s capital account with M/s. Mohan Marketing, proprietary concern. Shorn of unnecessary details, the A.O in the course of the assessment proceedings, observed, that there was an addition of Rs.28.30 lac (approx.) in the capital account of the assessee with M/s. Mohan Marketing, a proprietary concern. As the assessee had failed to prove the nature and source of the additions in his capital account, the A.O held the entire amount of Rs.28.30 lac (supra) as the undisclosed income of the assessee. On appeal, the assessee in order to substantiate the nature and source of the additions in his capital account had placed on record certain documents as additional evidence U/rule.46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, viz. (i) copy of audited balance sheet of M/s. Mohan Marketing; (ii) copy of audited balance sheet of Shri Ghanshyam Agrawal (individual); (iii) copy of ledger account of Shri Ghanshyam Agrawal; and (iv) copy of the bank statement of Shri Ghanshyam Agrawal. It was the claim of the assessee that as he during the course of the assessment proceedings was taken 15 Shri Ghanshyam Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1) ITA No. 266/RPR/2017 unwell, therefore, the aforesaid documents substantiating the nature and source of the amounts credited in his capital account could not be filed with the AO. Although, the CIT(Appeals) admitted the aforesaid additional documentary evidence, but was of the view that as the assessee had failed to explain as to what was the source of additions in his capital account, thus, rejected his claim that the same were out of his duly unexplained sources. 13. Aggrieved, the assessee has assailed the order of the CIT(Appeals) sustaining the aforesaid addition of Rs.28.30 lac before us. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid issue in hand in the backdrop of the contentions advanced by the Ld. Authorized representatives for both the parties. Before adverting any further, we think it apt that the explanation of the assessee as regards the source of addition in his capital account with M/s. Mohan Marketing, a proprietary concern, as had been filed before us, Page 67-68 of the APB be culled out as under: Date of credit in Mohan Marketing Amount Mode of receipt Source Remarks 16 Shri Ghanshyam Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1) ITA No. 266/RPR/2017 05.07.2011 1500 - - PPF SBI Account 05.07.2011 100 - - Interest paid other transfer 07.10.2011 350000 Banking channel Out of cash deposit in State Bank of India 07.10.2011 and thereafter amount remitted to Mohan Marketing The assessee has sold two immovable property during the year, one to Suneeta Agrawal and another one to Sheekha Singhal. The assessee has received cash of Rs.15,00,000/- from Sunita Agrawal and Rs.12,34,600/- from Sheekha Agrawal on 03.09.2011. The cash was deposited out of the said cash. 10.10.2011 500000 Banking channel Out of cash deposit in State Bank of India 10.10.2011 and thereafter amount remitted to Mohan Marketing 23.12.2011 70000 Banking channel Out of the amount received from wife Mrs. Saroj Agrwal of Rs.72,000/- on 23.12.2011 The amount received from Saroj Agrawal was deposited in SBI Account No.30613690596. 27.12.2011 300000 Banking channel Out of loan taken from Subhash Agrawal of Rs.300000/- on 27.12.2011 The loan received from Subhash Agrawal was deposited in SBI Account No.30613690596 02.01.2012 500000 Banking channel Out of loan taken from Hindustan Wood Craft of Rs.500000/- on 02.01.2012 The loan received from Hindustan Wood Craft was deposited in SBI Account No.30613690596 11.01.2012 200000 Banking channel Out of loan taken from Nirmal Singhal of Rs.200000/- on 11.01.2012 The loan received from Nirmal Singhal was deposited in SBI Account No.30613690596 17 Shri Ghanshyam Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1) ITA No. 266/RPR/2017 25.01.2012 400000 Banking channel Amount received from Mohan Marketing itself is again transfer to Mohan Marketing Transfer from one account to another account only. 17.02.2012 170000 Banking channel Out of cash deposit in State Bank of India 15.02.2012 and thereafter amount remitted to Mohan Marketing The cash has been deposited out of cash withdrawal from PNB Bank bearing account No. 2966000100067360 on 09.02.2012 of Rs.195000/- and on 15.02.2012 of Rs.160000/-. The amount was withdrawn from PNB account out of amount received from housing loan taken from Punjab National Bank credited in PNB account. 21.02.2012 76000 Banking channel Out of amount received from Mohan Marketing on 17.02.2012 of Rs.4,00,000/-, out of the said amount, the assessee has transferred 76000/- to Mohan Marketing again. Transfer from one account to another account only. 24.02.2012 40000 Banking channel Out of the amount received from Income Tax refund of Rs.42308/- was transferred to Mohan Marketing The IT refund was received in SBI account No. 30613690596 01.03.2012 200000 Banking channel Out of cash deposit in State bank of India of 2,00,000/- and thereafter amount remitted to Mohan Marketing The cash has been deposited out of cash withdrawal from PNB Bannk bearing account No. 2966000100067360 18 Shri Ghanshyam Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1) ITA No. 266/RPR/2017 on 09.02.2012 of Rs.195000/- and on 15.02.2012 of Rs.160000/-. The amount was withdrawn from PNB account out of amount received from housing loan taken from Punjab National Bank credited in PNB account. 14.03.2012 24000 Banking channel Out of amount received from Ventura Securities 07.03.2012 Form share and securities account Total 2831600 On a perusal of the aforesaid details, we find that it is the claim of the assessee that on four occasions the credits in his capital account was sourced out of the cash deposits in his savings account No. 30613690596 with SBI, Branch : Pandri (i.e. forming part of the cash deposits of Rs.19.60 lacs in the said bank account), as under: 07.10.2011 350000 Banking channel Out of cash deposit in State Bank of India 07.10.2011 and thereafter amount remitted to Mohan Marketing The assessee has sold two immovable property during the year, one to Suneeta Agrawal and another one to Sheekha Singhal. The assessee has received cash of Rs.15,00,000/- from Sunita Agrwwal and Rs.12,34,600/- from Sheekha 10.10.2011 500000 Banking channel Out of cash deposit in State Bank of India 10.10.2011 and 19 Shri Ghanshyam Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1) ITA No. 266/RPR/2017 thereafter amount remitted to Mohan Marketing Agrawal on 03.09.2011. The cash was deposited out of the said cash. 17.02.2012 170000 Banking channel Out of cash deposit in State Bank of India 15.02.2012 and thereafter amount remitted to Mohan Marketing The cash has been deposited out of cash withdrawal from PNB Bank bearing account No. 2966000100067360 on 09.02.2012 of Rs.195000/- and on 15.02.2012 of Rs.160000/-. The amount was withdrawn from PNB account out of amount received from housing loan taken from Punjab National Bank credited in PNB account. 01.03.2012 200000 Banking channel Out of cash deposit in State bank of India of 2,00,000/- and thereafter amount remitted to Mohan Marketing The cash has been deposited out of cash withdrawal from PNB Bank bearing account No. 2966000100067360 on 09.02.2012 of Rs.195000/- and on 15.02.2012 of Rs.160000/-. The amount was withdrawn from PNB account out of amount received from housing loan taken from Punjab National Bank credited in PNB account. 20 Shri Ghanshyam Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1) ITA No. 266/RPR/2017 On a conjoint perusal of the assessee’s capital account with M/s. Mohan Marketing (supra), Page 65 of APB a/w. savings bank account with SBI, Branch Pandri, we find the aforesaid explanation of the assessee, i.e., receipt of the aforesaid amount from his savings bank account with SBI, Branch: Pandri to be correct, except for one occasion, i.e., on 17.02.2012 wherein as against the cash deposits of Rs.1.60 lakhs on 15.02.2012 in the bank account an amount of Rs.1.70 lakhs was transferred by the assessee to M/s. Mohan Marketing on 17.02.2012. As a result thereof, source of the credit in the capital account of the assessee amounting to Rs.1.70 lac on 17.02.2012 can only be held to have ben sourced out of th cash deposit of Rs.1.60 lac in his bank account with SBI, Branch : Pandri on 15.02.2012. In sum and substance, an amount of Rs.12.10 lakhs [Rs.12.20 lakhs (-) Rs.10,000/-] credited in the assessee’s capital account during the year under consideration is found to have been sourced out of the cash deposits (forming part of cash deposits of Rs.19.60 lac) made by the assessee in his savings bank account with SBI, Branch : Pandri during the year under consideration. As we have hereinabove dealt with the explanation of the assessee as 21 Shri Ghanshyam Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1) ITA No. 266/RPR/2017 regards the nature and source of the cash deposits of Rs.19.60 lac in his bank account, i.e., SBI, Branch: Pandri and had partly sustained the addition made by the A.O on the said count, therefore, no adverse inference qua such cash deposits which had found its way to the assessee’s capital account during the year under consideration, i.e, out of the cash deposits of Rs. 19.60 lac in the assessee’s bank account with SBI, Branch: Pandri can separately be drawn. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations vacate the addition of Rs.12.10 lac made by the A.O qua the credits in the assessee’s capital account with M/s. Mohan Marketing (supra). 15. Adverting to the remaining credits in the assessee’s capital account of Rs.16,21,600/- [Rs.28,31,600/- (-) Rs.12,10,000/-], we find that the explanation of the assessee as regards the same is multi-facet, viz. (i) loan received from various parties: Rs. 10 lac ; (ii) amount received from his wife : Rs.70,000/-; (iii) amount received from M/s. Mohan Marketing : Rs.4.76 lac; (iv) out of income tax refund : Rs.40,000/- ; (v) out of amount received towards shares and securities account : 24,000/-; and (vi) miscellaneous credits : 1600/-. As the details regarding the aforesaid 22 Shri Ghanshyam Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1) ITA No. 266/RPR/2017 transactions a/w. claim of the assessee as regards the source of the same was not available before the A.O in the course of the assessment proceedings, therefore, in all fairness the same are being restored to the file of the A.O for fresh adjudication after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and considering his explanation as regards the same. Needless to say, the A.O shall in the course of the set-aside proceeding afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee who shall remain at a liberty to substantiate his explanation as regards the nature and source of the credits in his capital account qua the aforesaid amount of Rs.16,21,600/- on the basis of fresh documentary evidences. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 16. Ground of appeal No.(s) 3 & 4 having been not pressed by the Ld. AR, are accordingly dismissed. 23 Shri Ghanshyam Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1) ITA No. 266/RPR/2017 17. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced under rule 34(4) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, by placing the details on the notice board. Sd/- Sd/- RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI RAVISH SOOD (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायप ु र/ RAIPUR ; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 26 th July, 2022 *SB आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur (C.G) 4. The Pr. CIT-1,Raipur (C.G) 5. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,रायप ु र बɅच, रायप ु र / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 6. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशान ु सार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Ǔनजी सͬचव / Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायप ु र / ITAT, Raipur. 24 Shri Ghanshyam Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1) ITA No. 266/RPR/2017 Date 1 Draft dictated on 10.06.2022 Sr.PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 20.06.2022 Sr.PS/PS 3 Draft proposed and placed before the second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by second Member AM/JM 5 Approved draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of order Sr.PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R 11 Date of dispatch of order