Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow V. Shri Sudhir Shankar Halwasiya, Lucknow

ITA 285/LKW/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1153 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-01-2018
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: C; ARE REPRODUCED BELOW ON FACTS
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Non compliance; Onus to prove
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.285/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.285/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 DY.C.I.T., RANGE-2, LUCKNOW. VS. SHRI SUDHIR SHANKAR HALWASIYA, 24, M.G. ROAD, HALWASIYA COURT, HAZARATGANJ, LUCKNOW. PAN:AANPH 9171 L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER T. S. KAPOOR, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 19/02/2016. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY TH E REVENUE ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN ALLOWING ENTIRE RELIEF O F RS.1,43,46,500/- TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE OF UN EXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE CASH FL OW STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE SIMPLY JUSTIFIED THE CASH INFLOW AND CASH OUTFLOW BUT DID NOT CORROBORATE THAT SUCH CRED ITS IN BANK ACCOUNTS NAMELY STATE BANK OF INDIA, ORIENTAL BANK OF INDIA, AXIS BANK LTD. DHANLAXMI BANK AND BANK OF BARODA HA D ACTUALLY BEEN MADE ON THE RELEVANT DATES OUT OF THE FREQUENT WITHDRAWALS FROM OTHER BANK ACCOUNTS. APPELLANT BY SMT. ALKA SINGH, D. R. RESPONDENT BY S HRI J. J. MEHROTRA, C.A. SHRI D. A. MEHROTRA, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING 11/01/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17/01/2018 I.T.A. NO.285/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 2 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD, CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE COULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN VIEW OF RULE 46A OF IT RULES ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT MORE THAN ADEQU ATE OPPORTUNITIES WERE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LEARNED D. R. SUBMITTED THAT ASSE SSEE HAD DEPOSITED HUGE CASH IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT FOR WHICH ASSESSING O FFICER HAD MADE ADDITION AND LEARNED CIT(A), AFTER ACCEPTING ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCE, HAS ALLOWED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED T HAT A NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER, T HE ASSESSEE DID NOT CO- OPERATE WITH THE PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE, ASSESSM ENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE I.T. ACT AND THEREFORE, THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS NOT WARRANTED. AS REGARDS MERITS OF THE CASE, LEAR NED D. R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD HUGE CASH IN HAND AND THEREFORE, W ITHDRAWAL FROM BANKS WAS NOT AS PER HUMAN PROBABILITIES. IT WAS SUBMITT ED THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND MERE FURNISHING OF CASH FLOW STATEMENT SHOWING AVAILABILITY OF CASH DOES NOT ITS ELF PROVE THAT ASSESSEE HAD UTILIZED SAME CASH INTO HIS BANK ACCOUNT WHICH WAS WITHDRAWN EARLIER. 3. LEARNED A. R., ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT NO FRESH EVIDENCE WAS FILED WITH LEARNED CIT(A) EXCEPT A CONSOLIDATIO N OF CASH DEPOSITS AND CASH WITHDRAWAL FROM VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE COMPLETE CASH FLOW STATEMENT WAS FILED WITH THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AND IN THIS RESPECT OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAGE NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS NOTED THAT VIDE REPLY DATED 24/03/2014, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED A CASH FLOW STATEMENT SHOWING SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. LEAR NED A. R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE NEXT PARA THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF T HE SAME IS WRONG AS ASSESSEE HAD FILED COMPLETE CASH FLOW STATEMENT. I T WAS SUBMITTED THAT I.T.A. NO.285/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 3 LEARNED CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY APPRECIATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON AN OR DER OF LUCKNOW BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DY. C.I.T. VS. SHRI PAW AN AGARWAL IN I.T.A. NO.374/LKW/2013 WHEREIN ON THE BASIS OF CASH FLOW S TATEMENT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WAS DISMISSED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE T HROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT T HE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE ACT. IT IS ALSO UNDISPUTE D FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED COMPLETE CASH FLOW STATEMENT. THIS FACT HAS BEEN MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER AT PAGES 3 AND 4 HOWEVER, ON THE BASIS OF FREQUENT HUGE WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK AND SIMULTAN EOUSLY HUGE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK, CREATED DOUBT IN HIS MIND AND HE HELD THAT IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD AS TO WHY THE CASH AMOUNTS WERE REQUIRED TO BE WITHDRAWN WHEN THE CASH OUT OF EARLIER WITHDRAWALS WAS AVAILA BLE AND AS TO WHY THE CASH WAS DEPOSITED AGAIN IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. HE F URTHER HELD THAT IF THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE AVAILAB ILITY OF FUNDS AFTER MAKING WITHDRAWALS FROM BANK ACCOUNTS WAS TO BE ACC EPTED TO EXCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY OF INTRODUCTION OF UNEXPLAINED MONEY AS CASH DEPOSIT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNTS, THEN IT HAS TO BE HELD THAT WHOSOEVER IS HAVING SUFFICIENT CASH WITH HIM, THEN THAT PERSON WILL NOT INDULGE INTO TA X EVASION OR AVOIDANCE. HE FURTHER HELD THAT MERE FURNISHING OF DETAILS OF AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS WITH THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENOUGH TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS. FROM THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT IS APPARENT THAT ASSESSING OFFICER JUST DISBELIEVED THE CASH DEPOSITS AND CASH WITHDRAWAL ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. NOWHERE HE DOUBTED TH E ACTUAL WITHDRAWAL AND ACTUAL DEPOSITS. HE MERELY HELD THAT IS AN UNU SUAL PHENOMENON TO MAKE WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK AND DEPOSIT INTO THE BANK. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS RECORDED COMPLETE AND DETAILED FINDINGS AND AFT ER OBTAINING REMAND I.T.A. NO.285/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 4 REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALLOWED RELIE F TO THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER: IN THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THE APPELLANT HAS OBJEC TED TO ADDITION OF RS.1,43,46,500/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY TREATING THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDING THE SAME AS INCOME FROM UNDI SCLOSED SOURCES. THE AO IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS OBSERVE D THAT AS PER AIR INFORMATION CASH DEPOSITED BY THE A PPELLANT WAS FOUND IN THE FOLLOWING BANK ACCOUNTS:- 1. DHANLAXMI BANK LIMITED 81,50,000/- 2. STATE BANK OF INDIA 30,13,000/- 1,11,63,000/ - DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED COPY OF ALL THE BANKS ACCOUNTS AND ON PER USAL OF WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT CASH WAS ALS O DEPOSITED IN THE ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE. AXIS BANK AND BAN K OF BARODA AT PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE HAS EX TRACTED THE DATE AND AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT OF CASH IN DIFFERENT BAN K ACCOUNTS. FURTHER HE HAS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT VIDE REP LY DATED 24.3.2014 SUBMITTED A CASH FLOW STATEMENT SHOWING T HE SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS. THEREAFTER ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT IT I S SEEN FROM THE DETAILS FILED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THOUGH CASH WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE APPELLANT ON DIFFERENT DATES FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNTS BUT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY COR ROBORATIVE AND CONTEMPORANEOUS EVIDENCES TO PROVE THAT THE CAS H WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS WAS SUBSEQUENTLY D EPOSITED BACK IN HIS BANK ACCOUNTS. THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOWS VERY FREQUENT CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANKS BY THE ASSESSEE AND SIMULTANEOUSLY FREQUENT DEPOSITS OF CA SH IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS WHICH GIVE A VERY PECULIAR PICTURE. T HEREAFTER HE HAS OPINED THAT THE WITHDRAWALS AND DEPOSITS ARE MY STERIOUS AND THE STATEMENT THROUGH WHICH THE ASSESSEE'S SEEK S TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACC OUNT IS FULL OF SUSPICIOUS FEATURES AND IT CANNOT BE RELIED UPON AS EVIDENCE. I.T.A. NO.285/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 5 HE HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT MERE AVAILABILITY OF F UNDS WITH THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENOUGH TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS AND IT CANNOT ABSOLVE ASSESSEE FROM DISCHA RGING ITS BURDEN OF PROVING SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS AS THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY THAT THE CASH WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE BEEN UTILIZED TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE PROPERT Y AND THE CASH WAS DEPOSITED FROM HIS UNDISCLOSED MONEY. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PROCEEDED TO TREAT THE AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.1,43,46,500/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPEL LANT AND HAS ADDED THE SAME. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DET AILED SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED BY THE COUNSEL OF THE APPELL ANT. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE MAIN SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE WAS ON ACCOUNT OF SERVICE CHARGES RECEIVED FROM GENERAT OR AND MAINTENANCE OF BUILDING WHICH WERE DULY SUPPORTED B Y VARIOUS AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO WITH VARIOUS TENANTS. ON PE RUSAL OF THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED BY THE APPELLANT IT IS SEEN THAT BESIDES INCOME FROM GENERATOR MAINTENANCE, THE APPE LLANT WAS ENJOYING INCOME FROM RENTAL OF PROPERTY WHICH WAS A LSO, IN TURN, DULY SUPPORTED BY AGREEMENTS AND, THEREFORE, ANY APPREHENSION WITH REFERENCE TO HAVING ANY UNDISCLOS ED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT WAS MISPLACED AND MIS CONCEIVED AND WAS ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF WISHFUL THINKING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ENTIRE OBSERVATIONS O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJE CTURES AND BASED ON WISHFUL THINKING ONLY WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO DISBELIEVE THE AVERMENT OF THE MATERIAL ON RECOR D TO DISBELIEVE THE AVERMENT OF THE APPELLANT AND THE FA CT THAT THE CASH WAS AVAILABLE WITH HIM AND SOURCE OF WHICH WAS DULY FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE STATEMENT WHICH WAS FILED BY THE APPELLANT FIND S PLACE AT PAGE 17 OF THE COMPILATION SUBMITTED BY TH E APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT ALSO FILED A COPY OF THE CASH BOOK OF PERSONAL SET OF THE APPELLANT AND COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS IN S UPPORT OF HIS CLAIM THAT CASH WAS DULY AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLA NT AT THE TIME OF DEPOSIT THEREOF IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS. THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE APPELLANT WAS FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AND THE I.T.A. NO.285/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 6 ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SUBMITTED HIS REMAND REPORT A S PER PROVISIONS OF 250(4) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. IN PARA 2 OF THE REMAND REPORT AO HAS EXTRACTED THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE O RIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THEREAFTER HE HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS:- 'DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TH E ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF CASH D EPOSITS BY FURNISHING CASH FLOW STATEMENT WITH REGARD TO AVAIL ABILITY OF CASH. THE ABOVE CASH FLOW STATEMENT WAS SUBMITTED V IDE REPLY DATED 24.3.2014. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD AS T O WHY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDEN CE TO PROVE THAT THE CASH WITHDRAWN FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNTS WAS SUBSEQUENTLY DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNTS. DURING THE COURSE OF THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED A COPY OF THE CASH BOOK AND HAS EXPLAINED THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH/FUNDS PROVE THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS. THIS FACT HAS ALSO NOT BEEN DOUBTED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WHERE HE HAS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SU BMITTED A CASH FLOW STATEMENT SHOWING SOURCE OF CASH REPLY DA TED 24.3.2014.' THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS HAS FURTHER OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE EXAMINED IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS REGARDING THER E ADMISSIBILITY IN VIEW OF RULE 46A OF IT RULES, SPEC IALLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT SEVERAL OPP ORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS WHICH WERE NOT COMPLIED WITH AND THE ASSESSEE KNOWING THA T NON COMPLIANCE MAY INVITE ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST HIM .' IN THE REMAND REPORT FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOWS THAT THE CASH BOOK WHICH WAS FILED IS AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE ME WAS ALSO PRODUCED BEFORE HIM AND THE APPE LLANT HAS EXPLAINED THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH/FUNDS TO PROVE S OURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS. THUS, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE SOURCE AND FUNDS OF C ASH DEPOSITS STAND PROVED BY THE APPELLANT WITH REFEREN CE TO THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH IN HAND. I.T.A. NO.285/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 7 IN RESPONSE TO THE REMAND REPORT THE APPELLANT FILE D REPLY DATED 08.02.2016 WHICH WAS FOLLOWED BY REPLY DATED 11.02.2016. ALONG WITH REPLY DATED 11.02.2016, BESI DES CASH BOOK WHICH WAS FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE AP PELLANT ALSO SUBMITTED A DATE WISE CHART SHOWING THE AVAILABILIT Y OF CASH WITHDRAWAL FROM BANK AND DEPOSITED IN BANK WHICH CH ART WAS EXTRACTED BY THE APPELLANT THROUGH CASH AVAILABILIT Y CART FILED DURING THE COURSE OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS WHICH FIND PLACE AT PAGE 17 OF THE COMPILATION. ON PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID CHART ALSO IT IS OBSERV ED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SUFFICIENT CASH BALANCE AVAILABLE WITH HIM BEFORE DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE CASH BY HIM MEANING THEREBY THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SUFFICIENT C ASH AVAILABLE SO AS TO FUND THE DEPOSIT OF CASH MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS. THE AO IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS IN THE REMAND ORDER HAS OBSERVED THAT MERE FURNISHING DETA ILS OF AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS WITH THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENOU GH TO PROVE THE SOURCE OVER CASH DEPOSIT AND IT CANNOT ABSOLVE THE ASSESSEE FROM DISCHARGING HIS BURDEN TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIAT E THAT THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN FROM ONE BANK WAS SUBSEQUENTLY DEP OSITS BY HIM IN THE SAME BANK OR SOME OTHER BANK. I FAIL TO APPRECIATE THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO IN THIS REGARD. WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS SUPPOSED TO KEEP TR ACK OF THE NUMBER OF RESPECTIVE NOTES WHICH WERE RECEIVED BY H IM WHEN THE CASH WAS WITHDRAWN BY HIM AND GET IT TALLIED WI TH THE CASH DEPOSIT WHICH HE IS MAKING IN THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT OR OTHER BANK ACCOUNT WHAT IS TO BE SEEN IS AS TO WHETHER TH ERE WAS SUFFICIENT CASH AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT AND TH E SOURCE OF SAID CASH AVAILABILITY WHICH STANDS DULY EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT WITH REFERENCE TO HIS BANK ACCOUNTS AND A LSO HIS CASH BOOK. THE BANK ACCOUNTS ARE ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS AND HAVE ALSO BEEN FILED BEFORE HIM AND FIND PLACE FROM PAGE 72 TO 138 OF THE COMPILATION. THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH IN ITA NO. 374/LKW/2 013 IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. PAWAN AGARWAL WHERE IN ON SIMI LAR FACTS I.T.A. NO.285/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 8 AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS UPHELD T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION IN WHICH CASE ALSO THE CASH, FLOW STATEMENT WAS SUBMITTED AND THE MOVEMENT OF CA SH WAS DISCLOSED ON ALL DATES WHEN THE CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANKS ACCOUNT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT CA SH BALANCE AVAILABLE WITH HIM. THERE IS NO MATERIAL OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE ON RECOR D TO SHOW AND SUGGEST THAT THE CASH MIGHT HAVE BEEN UTIL IZED BY THE APPELLANT FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSES AND MERELY ON SURM ISES AND CONJECTURES AND SUSPICION THE EVIDENCE WHICH HAS BE EN SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE REJECTED. I ALSO FAIL TO UNDERSTAND AS TO WHAT TYPE OF CONTEMPORANEOUS AND CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WANTED THE APPELLANT TO FURNISH. IN FACT, O NCE THE APPELLANT HAD SUBMITTED PROPER CASH FLOW STATEMENT THE ONUS WAS SHIFTED ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PIN POINT A NY DEFECT OR MISTAKE FOR REJECTING THE SAME. REJECTING THE SAME ON SUSPICION ABOVE IS NOT PERMITTED IN LAW. 4.1 THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT(A) ARE QUITE EXHAUSTIVE AND ARE BASED UPON THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE WHICH WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE, THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF RULE 46A ALSO AND THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17/01/2018) SD/. SD/. (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ( T. S. KAPOOR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:17/01/2018 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW