J.Haripriya, Berhampur V. ITO, Ward-1, Berhampur

ITA 313/CTK/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4390 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K PRADHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: P K MISHRA
• Keywords: Peak credit; Onus to prove

Judgement Text

, . . , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 313 / CTK /20 1 6 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 0 - 20 1 1 ) SMT. J. HARIPRIYA, 504, GANESH C ASTLES, 7 TH LANE, PREM NAGAR, BERHAMPUR, GANJAM - 760002 VS. ITO, WARD - 1, BERHAMPUR ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : A CDPH 6460 N ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.K.MISHRA , AR /REVENUE BY : SHRI D.K.PRADHAN , DR / DATE OF HEARING : 02 / 01 /201 8 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03 / 01 /201 8 / O R D E R TH IS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - 1 , BHUBANESW AR , DATED 04.05.2016 . 2. GROUND NOS. 1, 2 & 4 OF THE APPEAL ARE GENERAL IN NATURE, HENCE, REQUIRES NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. 3. GROUND NO.3 READS AS UNDER : - 3. THAT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED AO TO THE T UNE OF RS.3,74,220/ - UNDER THE HEAD UNDISCLOSED INCOME EARNED BY WAY OF COMMISSION, PARTICULARLY WHEN, THERE IS NO SUCH COMMISSION EARNED BY THE APPELLANT. 3.1 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALLOWED OTHERS TO PURCH ASE DRAFTS FROM HER ACCOUNT BY DEPOSITING CASH INTO THE SAME. IN VIEW OF THE AO NO PRUDENT PERSON WOULD ALLOW HIS/HER BANK ACCOUNT TO BE USED FOR PURCHASE OF DRAFTS WITHOUT CHARGING ANY COMMISSION FOR THE SAME. T HEREFORE, HE ESTIMATED THE COMMISSION INCOME @2% OF THE TOTAL DRAFTS PURCHASED FOR RS.1,87,11, 001/ - AND MADE ITA NO. 313 /CTK/201 6 2 AN ADDITION OF RS.3,74,220/ - TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO IS AS UNDER : - 'NOW COMING TO THE ASPECT OF ASSESSEE ALLOWING HER BANK ACCOUNT TO BE UTILIZED IN SU CH A MANNER FOR FACILITATING OTHERS TO GET BANK DRAFTS AS AND WHEN REQUIRED FOR THEIR IMFL TRADE, NO PRUDENT PERSON WILL ALLOW SUCH A FACILITY WITHOUT AN EYE FOR SOME RETURNS. THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF DEPOSITING MONEY INTO HER ACCOUNT, FILING UP FORMS FOR PUR CHASE OF DRAFT, COLLECTING THE DRAFTS AND DISTRIBUTING IT INVOLVES LOT OF LABOUR AND TIME AND ALSO ENGAGING SOME ASSISTANTS, INCURRING SOME EXPENDITURE. THE A/R OF THE ASSESSEE DENIED OF THE ASSESSEE GETTING ANY COMMISSION FOR THIS ARRANGEMENT. HOWEVER, TH IS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. CONSIDERING THIS, COMMISSION OF 2% IS TAKEN ON THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF DD PURCHASES MADE THROUGH ASSESSEE'S BANK ACCOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,87,11,001/ - SINCE THIS AMOUNT WAS ALLOWED AS FACILITATION TO OTHERS FOR PURCHASE OF DRAFTS, WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS.3,74,220/ - WHICH WILL BE ADDED TO THE ASSESSEE'S TOTAL I NCOME AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 3.2 BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS UNDER : - 'ACCORDING TO THE A O THE APPELLANT EARNED COMMISSION @2% OF RS. 1 ,87,11, 001/ - I.E THE AGGREGATE VALUE OF DEMAND DRAFT (DD) ISSUED BY THE BANK. HE THEREFORE, ADDED BACK THE SAME TO THE RETURNED INCOME. THE ADDITION MADE IS BASED ON ASSUMPTION & PRESUMPTION. THIS IS NOT OUT OF PLACE TO MENTION THE APPELLANT DO NOT POSSES ANY LICENSE TO SALE IMFL. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE AO TO SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT HAD EARNED ANY COMMISSION ON ACCOUNT OF DD ISSUED BY BANK. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE S. B A/E. STANDING IN APPELLANT'S NAME WAS OPERATED WHOLLY, EXCLUSIVELY AND NECESSARILY FOR THE PURP OSE OF APPELLANT'S HUSBAND (J. NAGESWAR REO, PAN:ADOPR 3673 F) & HIS FRIENDS AND ALSO FOR MY FATHER K. S. N SUBUDHI, PAN: AOJPS 8058 K WHO WAS THE PROPRIETOR OF SHANKAR WINES, NEW BUS STAND, BERHAMPUR THEIR BUSINESS. DURING THE ASSESSMENT.' NEITHER THE APP ELLANT'S HUSBAND NOR HIS FRIENDS HAD SAID THAT THEY HAD PAID ANY COMMISSION. THE AMOUNT ADDED BACK IS, THEREFORE, LIABLE TO BE DELETED. ' THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS T HAT SHE HAS NOT EARNED ANY COMMISSION INCOME BY ALLOWING OTHERS TO MAKE USE OF HER BANK ACCOUNT IS NOT AT ALL ACCEPTABLE. HE OBSERVED THAT IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE T HAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED MORE THAN 30 IMFL DEALERS TO DEPOSIT CASH IN HER ACCO UNT AND PURCHASE DEMAND DRAFTS WITHOUT GETTING ITA NO. 313 /CTK/201 6 3 ANY BENEFIT FOR HER. THE ACTION AO BY ESTIMATING COMMISSION INCOME @2% OF THE TOTAL DEMAND DRAFTS PURCHASED APPEARS TO BE MORE THAN REASONABLE AND IS JUSTIFIED GOING BY THE PRINCIPLE OF PREPONDERANCE OF PROBAB ILITY. HE, THEREFORE, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.3,74,220/ - . 3.4 THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 3.5 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 3.6 I HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISS IONS, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALLOWED OTHERS TO PURCHASE DRAFTS FROM HER BANK ACCOUNT AND DEMAND DRAFTS WERE PURCHASED BY MORE THAN 30 INDIAN MADE FOREIGN LIQUOR (IMFL) DEALERS. THE AO OBSERVED THAT NO PRUDENT PERSON WOULD ALLOW HIS/HER BANK ACCOUNT TO BE USED FOR PURCHASE OF DRAFTS WITHOUT CHARGING ANY COMMISSION. HE, THEREFORE, ESTIMATED THE COMMISSION INCOME @2% OF THE TOTAL DRAFTS PURCHASED FOR RS.1,87,11, 001/ - AND ADDED RS.3,74,220/ - TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . 3.7 ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF AO OBSERVING THAT THE ACTION OF THE AO IN ESTIMATING COMMISSION INCOME @2% OF THE TOTAL DEMAND DRAFTS PURCHASED APPEARS TO BE RE ASONABLE AND JUSTIFIED IN VIEW OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY. ITA NO. 313 /CTK/201 6 4 3.8 THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WHEREAS THE DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 3.9 IN THE ABOVE BACKGR OUND OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED DETAILS TO SHOW THAT WHO ARE THE PERSONS, WHO DEPOSITED MONEY IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF DEMAND DRAFTS. NO CONFIRMATION WAS FILED FROM THEM. NO DETAILS HAVE ALSO BEEN FURNISHED TO SHOW THAT THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS OF HER HUSBAND SHRI J. NAGESWAR RAO FOR PURCHASE OF DEMAND DRAFTS FOR PURCHASING IMFL. IN ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH EVIDENCE BEING BROUGHT ON RECORD, I FIND T HAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE AO . HENCE, I CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 . GROUND NO.4 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER : - 4. THAT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHOUL D NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED AO RELATING TO THE BANK DEPOSITS OF RS.4,00,000.00 AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS, IGNORING THE EXPLANATION AND EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFORE THEM. AS SUCH, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 4.1 BRIE F FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO OBSERVED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.4 LAKHS WAS DEPOSITED ON 30.06.2009 BEING CANCELLATION OF DEMAND DRAFTS. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THIS AMOUNT REPRESENTS THE DEMAND DRAFTS PURCHASED EARLIER BY SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR PATRO IN FAVOUR OF ENDOWMENT COMMISSIONER FOR LAND AND THIS AMOUNT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY DRAWN BY HIM FROM THE ASSESSEE'S ACCOUNT ON DIFFERENT DATES. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER ITA NO. 313 /CTK/201 6 5 CONSIDERATION, WAS OPENED ON 26.5.2009 WITH A N INITIAL CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.3,00, 000/ - . FROM THAT DATE AND TILL 30.6.2009 THE DRAFT OF RS.4,00,000/ - WAS NEVER PURCHASED THROUGH THE WITHDRAWALS FROM ASSESSEE'S ACCOUNT. HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE INTENDS TO EXPLAIN THAT THIS AMOUNT BELONGS TO ONE SANT OSH KUMAR PATRO WHEN THE AMOUNT OF RS.4,00, 000/ - WAS DEPOSITED IN ASSESSEE'S ACCOUNT BY WAY OF CANCELLATION OF DEMAND DRAFTS . HE OBSERVED THAT IF THE TRANSACTION WAS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVAILING THE BANK ACCOUNT FACILITY OF THE ASSESSEE, IMMEDIATELY AF TER THE CANCELLATION OF THE SAID DEMAND DRAFTS , HE COULD HAVE TAKEN BACK THE AMOUNT EITHER IN CASH OR IN THE FORM OF D D S IN FAVOUR OF THE OSBC. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO CORRESPONDING WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THER E WERE NO DEMAND DRAFTS PURCHASE D FOR A LONG INTERVAL AFTER THIS DEPOSIT. THEREFORE, HE HELD THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS AMOUNT BELONGED TO SRI SANTOSH KUMAR PATRO WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IF THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY BELON GED TO SANTOSH KUMAR PATRO , HE COULD HAVE ENCASHED IT THROUGH EITHER HIS OWN BANK ACCOUNT OR BY ANY OTHER MEANS, WITHOUT RESORTING TO DEPOSITING THE SAME INTO THE ASSESSEE'S ACCOUNT, WHICH WAS, IN TURN, ALSO NOT UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASING ANY D D S IN FAVOUR OF THE OSBC. THEREFORE, HE CONCLUDED THAT THIS AMOUNT BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS DEPOSITED BACK PURPOSELY INTO HER BANK ACCOUNT AND WAS ALSO NOT LATER TAKEN BACK BY THE ALLEGED PERSON. HENCE, HE TREATED RS. 4, 00 ,000/ - AS ASSESSEE 'S INCOME FOR UNEXPLAINED SOURCES AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 313 /CTK/201 6 6 4.2 BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT NEITHER THE AO CARRIED OUT ANY ENQUIRY BEFORE MAKING ADDITION NOR ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE FURTHER EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT BELONG S TO SANTOSH KUMAR PATRO AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION SHOULD BE DELETED. 4.3 THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HELD THAT HE DID NOT AGREE WITH THE ASSESSEE AS THE BASIC RULE OF EVIDENCE TH AT THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON THE PERSON WHO MAKES A CLAIM AND CONTENDS THAT THE APPARENT IS NOT REAL. HE OBSERVED THAT IN THIS CASE, THE BURDEN OF PROOF AS REGARDS THE CANCELLATION OF DRAFT BY SRI PATRO SQUARELY LAY ON THE ASSESSEE AND THE AO HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. KEEPING ALL THIS IN VIEW, HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.4,00,000/ - . 4.4 BEFORE ME, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MAD E BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 4.5 I HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AO FOUND THAT A SUM OF RS.4 LAKHS WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ON 30.06.2009. THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT THE AMOUNT REPRESENTED THE CANCELLATION OF DEMAND DRAFTS PURCHASED BY SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR PATRO EARLIER. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS OPENED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 26.5.2009 WITH AN INITIAL CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.3,00, 000/ - AND TILL 30.6.2009 THERE WAS NO PURCHASE OF DEMAND DRAFTS OF RS.4,00,000/ - FROM THIS ACCOUNT. HE ALSO EXPRESSED A DOUBT ON THE ITA NO. 313 /CTK/201 6 7 EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE AFTER THE CREDIT OF THE AMOUNT BY CANCELLATION OF DEMAND DRAFTS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 30.06.2009, THERE WAS NO CORRESPONDING WITHDRAWALS FROM THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT FOR PAYING THE AMOUNT TO SANTOSH KUMAR PATRO OR THERE WAS NO PURCHASE OF DEMAND DRAFTS FOR THE SAME AMOUNT ON BEHALF OF SANTOSH KUMAR PATRO. THEREFORE, THE AO HELD THAT THE AMOUNT BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4.6 ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF AO. 4.7 BEFORE ME, ALSO, NO EVIDENCE WAS FILED TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) THAT THERE WAS NO PU RCHASE OF DEMAND DRAFTS OF RS.4 LAKHS FOR SANTOSH KUMAR PATRO FROM THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT PRIOR TO 30.06.2009 AS IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT RS.4 LAKHS CREDITED ON 30.06.2009 IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS PROCEEDS OF CANCELLATION OF DDS PURCHASED BY SAN TOSH KUMAR PATRO. NO EVIDENCE WAS ALSO BROUGHT ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE FINDING OF AO AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) THAT THERE WAS NO CORRESPONDING WITHDRAWALS OF RS.4 LAKHS OF THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT FOR REPAYMENT OF THE SAME TO SANTOSH KUMAR PATRO OR THERE WAS NO PURCHASE OF ANY DEMAND DRAFT FOR SANTOSH KUMAR PATRO FROM THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT SUBSEQUENT TO THE CREDIT OF RS.4 LAKHS ON 30.06.2009. 4.8 IN THE ABOVE BACKGROUND OF THE CASE, I FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WHICH IS CONFIRMED AND THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 313 /CTK/201 6 8 5 . GROUND NO.5 READS AS UNDER : - 5. THAT, LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.20,470/ - MADE BY THE LEARNED AO IGNORING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE IMPUGNED ACTION OF THE FORUMS BELO W IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW, HENCE, IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 5.1 AT THE TIME OF HEARING NO SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE, HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECU TION. 6 . GROUND NO. 6 READS AS UNDER : - 6. THAT, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS COMMITTED GROSS ERROR IN LAW AS WELL AS IN FACT, WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED AO TO THE TUNE OF RS.9,45,365/ - UNDER THE HEAD PEAK CREDIT, PARTICULARLY WHEN, THERE IS NO SUCH PEAK CREDIT. THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 6.1 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS A PEAK CREDIT OF RS.9,45,365/ - ON 5.12.2009 IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT. THIS AMOUNT IS TAKEN AS ASESSEES INCOME FROM SOME UNDISCLOSED SOURCES BECAUSE IF THE ASSESSEE ALLOWED OTHERS TO AVAIL OF HER BANK ACCOUNT FOR FACILITATING PURCHASE OF D D S IN FAVOUR OF OSBC, THERE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUCH HUGE BALANCE IN HER ACCOUNT. HE OBSERVED THAT IT IS SEEN FROM THE SAID BANK ACC OUNT, THAT THERE WERE NO WITHDRAWALS FROM THIS ACCOUNT FOR A CONSIDERABLE TIME FOLLOWING THIS DATE, EXCEPTING A FEW WITHDRAWALS OF SMALL AMOUNTS THROUGH ATM FACILITY, WHICH ALSO SHOWS THAT THIS AMOUNT BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE AND WAS UTILIZED BY HER FOR HE R OWN PURPOSES. THEREFORE, HE ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM SOME UND I SC L OSED SOURCES . 6.2 ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.9,45,365/ - WAS DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEES ITA NO. 313 /CTK/201 6 9 HUSBAND IN HER BANK ACCOUNT FOR PURCHASE OF FOUR DDS, AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE SAME WERE CANCELLED AND MONEY DEPOSITED IN ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM TO ACCEPT THIS PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO MATERI ALS WERE PRODUCED SUCH AS CASH BOOK MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND TO SHOW THAT HER HUSBAND HAD CASH BALANCE OF RS.9,45,365/ - AS ON 30.11.2009 AND THAT THE PROCEEDS OF THE CANCELLED DRAFTS GOT DEPOSITED BACK IN ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT ON 5.12.2009. H E FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE HAD NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE IN THE ABSENCE OF SUPPORTING MATERIALS AND, THEREFORE, HE DISMISSED THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS FICTION AND NOT FACT. 6.3 BEFORE ME, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED T HE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6.4 I HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ACCORDING TO THE AO THERE WAS PEAK CREDIT OF RS.9,45,365/ - ON 5.12.2009 IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH ICICI BANK. THE AO OBSERVED THAT AFTER THE PEAK CREDIT THERE WAS NO WITHDRAWAL FOR QUITE SOMETIME. HE THEREFORE, INFERRED THAT THIS AMOUNT BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6.5 ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ABOVE ADDITION BY OBSERVING THAT NO EVIDENCE THAT CREDIT OF RS.9,45,365/ - WAS OUT OF THE MONEY OF THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND SHRI J.NAGESWAR RAO WOULD BE PRODUCED. I FIND O N A ITA NO. 313 /CTK/201 6 10 PERUSAL OF THE BANK ACCOUNT UNDER CONSIDERATION THAT FROM THE VERY SAME ACCOUNT FOUR DRAFTS AGGREGATING TO RS.9,45,365/ - WAS PURCHASED ON 30.11.2009. THE NARRATION GIVEN BY THE BANK IN RESPECT OF CREDIT OF RS.9,45,365/ - ON 5.12.2009 SHOWS THAT SAME WER E CREDITED ON ACCOUNT OF CANCELLATION OF THE DRAFTS. THUS, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE CREDITS WERE OUT OF EARLIER WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT STANDS CORROBORATED. FURTHER, I FIND THAT THE DRAFTS OF MORE THAN THIS AMOUNT WAS PURCHASED FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER 5.12.2009. EVEN O THERWISE, I FIND THAT THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT CASH IN HAND WITH THE ASSESSEE AS ON 31.3.2009 WAS RS.2,79,230/ - AND ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED INCOME OF RS.1,99,400/ - IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I N HER RETURN OF INCOME. APART FROM THIS RS.3,74,220/ - WAS ASSESSED AS COMMISSION INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND RS.4,00,000/ - AND RS.20,770/ - WERE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ABOVE ADDITIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN UPHELD BY ME. THUS, THE ABOVE AMOUNT AGGREGATING TO RS.9,94,390/ - WHICH IS MUCH MORE THAT RS.9,45,365/ - . IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, NO SEPARATE ADDITION OF RS.9,45,365/ - WAS WARRANTED IN THE INSTANT CASE. THEREFORE, I DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.9,45,365/ - AND ALLOW THI S GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 7 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 03 / 01 /201 8 . SD/ - (N. S. SAINI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CUTTACK ; DATED 03 / 01 /201 8 . . / PKM , SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITA NO. 313 /CTK/201 6 11 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, ( SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ) , / ITAT, CUTTACK 1. / THE APPELLANT - SMT. J. HARIPRIYA, 504, GANESH CASTLES, 7 TH LANE, PREM NAGAR, BERHAMPUR, GANJAM - 760002 2. / THE RESPONDENT - ITO, WARD - 1, BERHAMPUR 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY//