SHRI PRATEEK PATEL, MANSAROVAR, JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

ITA 314/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5416 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAM SINGH CIT DHK
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Business income; Corroborative evidences; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 44AD; 148; 69

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NOS. 313 & 314/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10 & 2010-11 PRATEEK PATEL, 92/103, AGRAWAL FARM, MANSAROVAR, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(4), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AMIPP 8526 E VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAM SINGH (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 11/10/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12/10/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A)-I, JAIPUR, BOTH DATED 04/01/2018 FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10 AND 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY. FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW I N CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,50,000/- U/S 69 BY HOLDING THAT T HE CASH PAID FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IS OUT OF THE UNDISCL OSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD WI THDRAWN THE SAID AMOUNT FROM HIS PROPRIETORY BUSINESS, M/S PS PATEL. HE HAS FURTHER ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE CREDIT OF RS. 1,51,993/- BEING THE DIFFERENCE ITA 313 & 314/JP/2018_ PRATEEK PATEL VS ITO 2 OF THE AMOUNT DECLARED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN AND T HE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 AGAINST THE ADDITION CON FIRMED BY HIM. 2. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES TO AMEND, ALTER AND MODIFY A NY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. THE APPROPRIATE COST BE AWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONTRACT UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S P.S. PATEL. THE ASSESSEE F ILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 09/2/2010, SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE AC T) ON 22/1/2016 AND IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE STATED VIDE HIS LETTER THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 09/2/2010 MAY BE TREATED AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT . DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE AGAIN FILED HI S RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME U/S 44AD OF THE ACT. THUS, THE ASS ESSEE HAS ENHANCED HIS INCOME FROM 1,67,025/- TO RS. 3,19,080/-. THE AS SESSEE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT ON 24/12/2007 FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULT URAL LAND MEASURING 8 BISWA AT VILLAGE NARI KA BAS, HATOJ, JAIPUR FROM O NE SMT. REKHA SHARMA AND VISHNU DATT SHARMA FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1 5,81,000/-. THE ASSESSEE MADE PAYMENTS TO THE VENDORS AS UNDER: DATE AMOUNT 24/12/2007 RS. 2,51,000/- 25/07/2008 RS. 2,50,000/- 02/01/2010 RS. 2,50,000/- ITA 313 & 314/JP/2018_ PRATEEK PATEL VS ITO 3 THUS, THE PAYMENT OF RS. 2,50,000/- MADE ON 25/7/200 8 FALLS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS A SKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE ABOVE PAYMENT. THE ASSESSE E EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF RS. 2,50,000/- BEING THE CASH WITHDRAWAL FR OM M/S P.S. PATEL AND FURTHER THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BACK FROM SMT. SAVI TA PATEL, WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THIS EXPLANATION AND MADE THE ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 2,50,000/- A S UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE ACT. 3. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED. 4. BEFORE US, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE COPY OF THE CASH BOOK OF M/S P.S. PATEL ALONGWITH THE RELEVANT BANK STATEMENT AND COPY OF AC COUNT OF SMT. SAVITA PATEL TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN THE CASH FROM THE BOOKS OF M/S P.S. PATEL WHICH IS VERIFIABLE FROM THE CASH BOOK OF THE BUSINESS ENTITY. FURTHER SMT. SAVITA PAEL IS ALSO ASSESSED T O TAX AND THEREFORE, THE MONEY RECEIVED FROM SMT. SAVITA PATEL IS ALSO REFLE CTED IN THE ACCOUNTS. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE HAS REFERRED TO TH E BANK STATEMENT MAINTAINED WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA OF M/S P.S. PATE L AND POINTED OUT THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN MORE THAN RS. 2,50,000/- COMPR ISING OF RS. ITA 313 & 314/JP/2018_ PRATEEK PATEL VS ITO 4 75,000/- ON 21/12/2009, RS. 98,000/- ON 23/12/2009, RS. 40,000/- ON 24/12/2009 AND RS. 45,000/- ON 30/12/2009. THE LD AR HAS THEN REFERRED TO THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF M/S P.S. PATEL AND POINTED OUT THAT ALL THESE ENTRIES ARE ALSO REFLECT ED IN THE SAID LEDGER ACCOUNT AND HENCE WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE LEDGER ACCOUNT AS WELL AS THE BANK ACCOUNT IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM THEN THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ARE NOT JUSTIFIED. THE LD AR HAS ALSO REFERRED TO THE FINDIN G OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENT OF RS. 2,51,000/- ON 24/12/2007 WAS ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR TH E A.Y. 2008-09 WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BY ACCEPTING THE SOURCE AS CASH WITHDRAWAL OF M/S P.S. PATEL WHEREAS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECLINED TO ACCEPT THE SOURCE OF CASH PAYMENT AS WIT HDRAWAL FROM THE BOOKS OF M/S P.S. PATEL. HENCE, THE LD AR HAS SUBMI TTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE DELETED. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTIC E U/S 148 AND RETURN U/S 44AD OF THE ACT THEN IT IS ADMITTED CASE THAT THE A SSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, THE SOURCE OF WITHDRAWAL OF BOOKS OF M/S P.S. PATEL CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA 313 & 314/JP/2018_ PRATEEK PATEL VS ITO 5 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE HAS FINALLY OFFERED THE INCOME U/S 44AD IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT, HOWEVER, THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF M/S P.S. PA TEL ARE VERY MUCH AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. F URTHER APART FROM THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF M/S P.S. PATEL AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PRODUCED THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEME NT OF M/S P.S. PATEL WHICH CORROBORATES THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNTS AS CLAI MED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHDRAWN FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF M/S P.S. PATEL ARE DULY MATCHING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF M/S P.S. PATEL, THEREFORE, O NCE THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE RELEVANT RECORD ALONGWITH THE BANK ACCO UNT THEN EVEN THOUGH, THE INCOME WAS OFFERED U/S 44AD OF THE ACT, THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF RS. 2,50,000/- WAS DULY EXPLAINED BY PROD UCTION OF RELEVANT ACCOUNTS AND BANK ACCOUNTS OF M/S P.S. PATEL. WE FI ND THAT THERE ARE FOUR ENTRIES OF WITHDRAWAL OF CASH IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT O F THE ASSESSEE WITH M/S P.S. PATEL AND THESE ENTRIES ARE ALSO REFLECTED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF M/S P.S. PATEL. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE WITHDRAWAL OF CASH IS DULY SUPPORTED AND SUBSTANTIATED WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENC E WHICH INCLUDES THE LEDGER ACCOUNT AS WELL AS BANK STATEMENT. THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE ONCE ESTABLISHED BY THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE THEN IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY FINDING THAT THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT GIVING ITA 313 & 314/JP/2018_ PRATEEK PATEL VS ITO 6 THE CORRECT FACTS, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED. EVEN OTHERWISE THE AMOUNT SHOWN AS WITHDRAW N FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH MATCHES WITH THE ENTRIES IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH M/S P.S. PATEL HAS ESTABLISHED THIS FA CT OF WITHDRAWAL OF CASH FROM THE BUSINESS ENTITY. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09, THE LD CIT(A) HAS DELETED AN IDENTICAL ADDITION OF R S. 2,51,000/- AS PART PAYMENT OF PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF THE LAND IN QU ESTION MADE ON 24/12/2007. THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 01/11/20 07 HAS HELD AS UNDER: 3.1.2 DETERMINATION : (I) I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT, ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE APPELLANT HAS MADE A CASH PAYMENT OF RS. 2,51,0 00/- AS PART PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS, THE APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE SOURCE OF SUCH INVESTMENT WA S OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWAL FROM ITS PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN M/S PS P ATEL. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE REPLY OF THE APPELLANT A ND HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.2,51,000/- THEREOF BY OBSERVING THAT THE APPELLANT WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT BALANCE IN ITS BANK ACCOUNT-AND T HE APPELLANT HAS TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF SUCH INVESTMENT BY REFERRING TO CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE BY IT IN THE PAST SIX MONTHS AS APPEARING IN I TS CASHBOOK. IT IS NOTED THAT NO SPECIFIC DEFECT COULD BE POINTED OUT BY THE AO IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT FIRM AND THESE WERE NOT R EJECTED AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD- WHICH MAY JUSTIFY THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,51,000/- MADE BY THE AO AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. IT IS A CHOICE OF THE APPELLANT TO MAKE PAYMENT OUT OF THE CASH AVAILABLE OR THROUGH I TS BANK ACCOUNT. THE ITA 313 & 314/JP/2018_ PRATEEK PATEL VS ITO 7 AO CANNOT DICTATE THE APPELLANT TO MAKE A PAYMENT I N A PARTICULAR MANNER AND THERE IS NO BAR AT THE RELEVANT TIME IN MAKING CASH PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF A CAPITAL -ASSET. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND LOOKING TO THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS HELD THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 2,51,000/- TO INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AND HENCE THE SAME IS HEREBY DELETED. WHEN THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS AS RECORDED IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT THEN THE DENIAL OF THE EXPLANATION OF THE SOURCE ME RELY ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THE INCOME TO TAX U/S 44AD OF THE ACT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THE ADDITION MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. IN THE CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11, THE ASSESSEE H AS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,50,000/- U/S 69 BY HOLDING THAT T HE CASH PAID FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IS OUT OF THE UNDISCL OSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD WI THDRAWN THE SAID AMOUNT FROM HIS PROPRIETORY BUSINESS, M/S PS PATEL. HE HAS FURTHER ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE CREDIT OF RS. 40,822/- BE ING THE DIFFERENCE OF THE AMOUNT DECLARED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN AND T HE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 AGAINST THE ADDITION CON FIRMED BY HIM. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,65,749/- U/S 69B BY HOLDING THAT THE SOURCE OF AMOUNT PAID FOR PURCHASE OF CAR IS NOT EXPLAINED. 3. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES TO AMEND, ALTER AND MODIFY A NY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4. THE APPROPRIATE COST BE AWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA 313 & 314/JP/2018_ PRATEEK PATEL VS ITO 8 8. GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL IS REGARDING THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 2,50,000/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTM ENT IN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE AS WEL L AS THE LD DR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ADDI TION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO THE PART PAYMENT O F RS. 2,50,000/- ON 02/01/2010. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF RS. 2,50,000/- AS WITHDRAWAL FROM THE CASH BOOK OF M/S P.S. PATEL. THE A SSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN RS. 2,58,000/- BETWEEN 12/5/2008 TO 12/7/200 8. THE SAID WITHDRAWAL IS ALSO REFLECTED IN THE BANK STATEMENT OF M/S P.S. PATEL. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSE E IN THE BOOKS OF M/S P.S. PATEL AS WELL AS THE BANK STATEMENT, WHICH IS PL ACED AT PAGE NOS. 32 AND 39 OF THE PAPER BOOK. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO OFFERED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 1,51,993/- FOR THE A.Y. 20 10-11. ONCE THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,58,000/- WITHDRAWN FROM BOOKS OF M/S P.S. PATEL IS PROVED FROM THE LEDGER ACCOUNT AS WELL AS BANK ACCOU NT STATEMENT THEN THE DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THIS ISSUE IS COMMON AS IN T HE A.Y. 2009-10. ACCORDINGLY, WE IN VIEW OF OUR FINDING IN THE CASE FO R A.Y. 2009-10 AND THE WITHDRAWAL IS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE BEING THE LEDGER ACCOUNT AND BANK STATEMENT, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAI NED THE SOURCE OF ITA 313 & 314/JP/2018_ PRATEEK PATEL VS ITO 9 PAYMENT OF RS. 2,50,000/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITIO N MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DELETED. 9. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL IS REGARDING THE ADDI TION OF RS. 1,65,749/- MADE U/S 69B OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF TH E PAYMENT MADE FOR PURCHASE OF CAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED A CAR FO R RS. 8,65,749/- ON WHICH INSURANCE OF RS. 1,00,940/- WAS ALSO PAID, THUS THE TOTAL INVESTMENT FOR PURCHASE OF VEHICLE WAS MADE OF RS. 9,66,689/-. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 7.00 LACS AS LOAN TAKEN FROM THE BANK AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,66, 689/- AS THE WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BALANCE AMOUNT REMAINED WITH THE ASSESSEE FROM THE WITHDRAWALS FROM M/S P.S. PATEL AND THE AMOUNT RE CEIVED FROM SMT. SAVITA PATEL AND FURTHER AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS . 1,92,000/- FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10 AND 2010-11. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE SAID EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE THE ADDITION O F RS. 2,66,689/-. 10. ON APPEAL, THE LD CIT(A) HAS HELD THE EXPENDITUR E ON ROAD TAX AND INSURANCE OF RS. 1,00,940/- IS REVENUE EXPENDITURE COVERED UNDER THE PROFIT DECLARED U/S 44AD OF THE ACT AND THUS DELETE D THE ADDITION TO THAT EXTENT AND CONFIRMED THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 1, 65,749/-. 11. BEFORE US, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE SAID AMOUN T OF RS. 1,65,749/- ITA 313 & 314/JP/2018_ PRATEEK PATEL VS ITO 10 PAID ON 22/3/2010 AS OUT OF PAST SAVINGS AND CURREN T INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD AR HAS FILED A CASH FLOW STATEMENT TO SHOW THAT FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10 AND 2010-11 THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING A S URPLUS CASH OF RS. 1,12,653/- AND RS. 1,29,488/- TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 2 ,42,141/-, WHICH IS SUFFICIENT AS SOURCE OF RS. 1,65,749/-. THUS, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE DELETED. 12. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING THE PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THEN THE CASH AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT CANN OT BE ACCEPTED AS A SOURCE OF INVESTMENT. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS OFFERED AN EXTRA INCOME OF ABOUT RS. 1,92,000/- FOR THESE TWO A SSESSMENT YEARS U/S 44AD OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, THE SAID AMOUNT OFFERED TO TAX WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR THE ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT TO THE EXTE NT OF RS. 1,65,749/- TOWARDS THE MARGIN MONEY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AT TH E TIME OF PURCHASE OF CAR. THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IS AS UNDER: PARTICULARS AY 2009 - 10 (IN RS.) AY 2010 - 11 (IN RS.) NET CASH WITHDRAWAL FROM M/S P.S. PATEL 87,598/ - 1,62,700/ - REPAYMEN T OF AMOUNT GIVEN TO SAVITA PATEL 1,93,000/- 2,15,000/- BUSINESS INCOME OFFERED IN 148 RETURN COMMISSION INCOME OFFERED IN 148 RETURN 1,52,055/ - 40,822/ - 42,366/- ITA 313 & 314/JP/2018_ PRATEEK PATEL VS ITO 11 TOTAL 4,32,653/ - 4,60,888/ - LESS: - HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF FAMILY 70,000/ - (PB 12) 81,400/ - (PB 27) BALANCE LEFT 3,62,653/ - 3,79,488/ - LESS: - PAID TO REKHA SHARMA 2,50,000/ - 2,50,000/ - CASH AVAILABLE 1,12,653/ - 1,29,488/ - TOTAL CASH AVAILABLE RS.2,42,141/- LESS:- INVESTMENT IN CAR ON 22.03.2010 RS. 1,65,749 /- BALANCE CASH LEFT RS.76,392/- ALL THE DETAILS GIVEN IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT ARE ALSO AVAILABLE IN THE RESPECTIVE ACCOUNTS AS WELL AS THE BANK ACCOUNT FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, EXCEPT THE EXTRA INCOME OFFERED BY THE A SSESSEE DURING THESE TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS ALL OTHER AMOUNTS OF CASH ARE T AKEN FROM THE RESPECTIVE ACCOUNTS. ACCORDINGLY, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE PAYMENT OF MARGIN MONEY FOR PURCHASE OF CAR THEN THE SAID ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT SUSTAINA BLE AND IS DELETED. 14. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12/10/2018. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO FOT; IKY JKO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 12 TH OCTOBER, 2018 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI PRATEEK PATEL, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT ITA 313 & 314/JP/2018_ PRATEEK PATEL VS ITO 12 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 313 & 314/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR