Smt. Manisha Rajendra Bhosale, Jalna V. Income tax Officer, Jalna

ITA 350/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7604 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 08-05-2018
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 13-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Unexplained expenditure; Question of law; Reason to believe
• Section: 69C; 142(1); 148; 144; 10

Judgement Text

- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC , PUNE , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM . / ITA NO S . 348 TO 350 /P U N/201 7 / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 200 9 - 1 0 TO 20 1 1 - 1 2 SMT. MANISHA RAJENDRA BHOSALE BHOSALE COACHING CLASSES, NEAR PRABHU HOSPITAL, BHAGYANAGAR, OLD JALNA - 431203 . / APPELLANT PAN: A JXPB8333K VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 , JALNA . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.K. KULKARNI / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ACHAL SHARMA / DATE OF HEARING : 0 8 .05.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18 . 0 5 .201 8 / ORDE R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : TH IS BUNCH OF APPEALS FILED BY THE SAME ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT (A) - I , AURANGABAD , ALL DATED 1 5 . 11 .2016 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR S 200 9 - 1 0 TO 201 1 - 1 2 AGAINST RESPECTIVE ORDER S PASSED UNDER SECTION 14 4 R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . ITA NO S . 348 TO 350 /P U N/20 1 7 SMT. MANISHA RAJENDRA BHOSALE 2 2. THIS BUNCH OF APPEALS RELATING TO SAME ASSESSEE FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS ON SIMILAR ISSUE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE . 3. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.348/PUN/2017, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF S. 147 OF THE AC T IS VITIATED IN LAW SINCE THE NOTICE ISSUED DT. 17 - 05 - 2013 WAS SERVED BY RPAD ON THE SAME DATE IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY. THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED WITHOUT RECORDING THE REASONS PRIOR TO ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148. THOUGH THIS GROUND WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) BUT BEING PURE QUESTION OF LAW GOING TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER IS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. IT BE ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION, ACCORDINGLY. 2) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE EXPARTE ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER S. 144 OF THE ACT SO MADE FOR WANT OF NON - FILING OF THE RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT IS VITIATED IN LAW SINCE THE A. O . HAS FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT U /S 144 R.W.S. 147 AS PER THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED. THE A. O . VIRTUALLY ADMITS THAT T HE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS TREATED TO HAVE BEEN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE EXPARTE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 IS NOT JUSTIFIED. IT BE QUASHED. 3) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW AND CONSIDERING THE ASSERTIVE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED FOR HER PROFESSION THE PROVISIONS OF S. 69A BECOME INAPPLICABLE FOR BRINGING TO TAX THE DEPOSITS INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ARE SIMPLY FROM OUT OF PROFESSIONAL RECEIPT S. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE ASSESSMENT CAN BE ONLY PERCENTAGE OF PROFIT BASIS. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,74,706/ - MADE BY THE A. O . THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BE DELETED. 4) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. C]T(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,74 , 706/ - MADE BY THE A. O . U/S 69A OF THE ACT. THE ADDITION MADE BEING ILLEGAL BE DELETED. 4. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS BUNCH OF APPEALS IS AGAINST REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING HAS ALSO FILED ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL, WHICH READS AS UNDER: - 1) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE STATUTORY NOTICE ISSUED UNDER S. 148 IS WITHOUT ANY SANCT ION AS REQUIRED BY S. 151 OF THE ACT. THE NOTICE ITSELF IS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THE CONSEQUENT ASSESSMENT IS ALSO ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THE ASSESSMENT BE QUASHED. ITA NO S . 348 TO 350 /P U N/20 1 7 SMT. MANISHA RAJENDRA BHOSALE 3 5. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTE D OUT THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INVESTIGATION OF FACTS, HENCE THE SAME BE ADMITTED. 6. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VAR IOUS ASPECTS OF THE SAID ISSUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND HAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT IS WITHOUT SANCTION REQUIRED BY SECTION 151 OF THE ACT. THE SECOND ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL W HICH GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE CASE AND HENCE, THE SAME IS ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION. 7. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTES THAT AS PER INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED SUBSTANTIAL CASH IN THE BANK ACCO UNT TO THE EXTENT OF 13,46,100/ - , 20,73,250/ - AND 10,48,700/ - FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009 - 10 TO 2011 - 12, RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS, RECORDED REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WITHIN MEANING OF EXPLANATION 2(B) OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT HAD ESCAPED THE ASSESSMENT FOR THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN 30 DAYS BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY RETURN OF INCOME. THEREAFTER, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY DETAILS EXCEPT LETTERS STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FORWARDING COPY OF COMPUTATION SHEET AND BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009 - 10 TO 2011 - 12. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED WRITTEN REPLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT DURING THE ITA NO S . 348 TO 350 /P U N/20 1 7 SMT. MANISHA RAJENDRA BHOSALE 4 YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THERE WAS CASH D EPOSIT OF 13,46,100/ - IN THE JOINT ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE HELD WITH HER HUSBAND SHRI RAJENDRA BHOSLE. THE ASSESSEE WAS DERIVING INCOME FROM COACHING CLASSES MAINLY. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT CASH DEPOSIT INTO BANK ACCOUNT RELATES TO COACHING CLASSES RECEIVED A ND WITHDRAWAL OF MONIES WAS HELD TO BE VAGUE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE ABSENCE OF CONCRETE EVIDENCE NARRATING THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS AND DESTINATION OF WITHDRAWALS. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE THERETO FURNISHED CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND POINTED OUT THAT OUT OF TOTAL CASH DEPOSIT OF 14,90,193/ - DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN GROSS RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF TUITION FEES TO THE EXTENT OF 3,32,172/ - AND 3,83,315/ - BY THE HUSBAND OF ASSESSEE, TOTALING 7,15,487/ - . THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF BALANCE OF 7,74,706/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN WITHDRAWALS TO THE EXTENT OF 10, 56,250/ - AND HAD INITIALLY CLAIMED THAT SHE HAD WITHDRAWN CASH AND RE - DEPOSITED THE SAME. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THERE WERE BEARER CHEQUES TO VARIOUS PERSONS, WHICH APPEARED TO BE TEACHERS, THEREFORE, THE SAME WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED AS THE ASSESSEE HAD ONLY SHOWN EXPENDITURE OF 1,44,322/ - IN ITS BALANCE SHEET. SINCE THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT, NO ADDITION WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPUTING TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE NOTED THAT INCOME AS PER RETURN FILED ON 18.10.2012 WAS 1,87,850/ - AND TO THAT , ADDITION OF 7,74,706/ - WAS MADE AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT 9,62,556/ - . ITA NO S . 348 TO 350 /P U N/20 1 7 SMT. MANISHA RAJENDRA BHOSALE 5 8. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE ISSUE ON MERITS AND T HE SAME WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 9. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL HAS RAISED THE ISSUE AGAINST EX - PARTE ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT FOR WANT OF NON - FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT AS PER ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED AND HENCE HAS CHALLENGED THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDE R SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. O THER GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE BEEN RAISED AGAINST MERITS OF ADDITION. FU RTHER, VIDE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE JURISDICTION EXERCISED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT BEING WITHOUT SANCTION REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT T HAT THE ISSUE RAISED GOES TO THE ROOT OF JURISDICTION AND CAN BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME. ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT, WHICH ARE ENCLOSED AT PAGE 3 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 , AT PAGE 8 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 010 - 11 AND AT PAGE 17 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 OF PAPER BOOK. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE STRESSED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD INVOKED EXPLANATION 2(B) TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 AND IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010 - 11 AND 2011 - 12 HAD INVOKED EXPLANATION 2(A) TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, ON THE GROUND THAT NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, WHILE COMPLETING ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RELIED ON THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR A SSESSMENT YEARS 2010 - 11 AND 2011 - 12. IN RESPECT OF SAID YEARS, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THA T WHERE THE RETURN OF INCOME HAD ALREADY BEEN FILED, THERE IS NO MERIT IN INVOKING EXPLANATION 2(A) OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. WITH REGARD TO ASSESSMENT ITA NO S . 348 TO 350 /P U N/20 1 7 SMT. MANISHA RAJENDRA BHOSALE 6 YEAR 2009 - 10, HE POINTED OUT THAT EXPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAD TO BE SEEN IN ENTIRETY AND NO ADDITION WAS POSSIBLE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 10. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 11. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD AND AFTER HEARING BOTH THE LEA RNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES, APPEALS IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010 - 11 AND 2011 - 12 ARE TAKEN UP FIRST. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN RECORDING REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME AND HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME WITHIN MEANING OF EXPLANATION 2 (A) OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. WITH REGARD TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10, REFERENCE WAS MADE TO EXPLANATION 2(B) OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THE CASE OF ASSESSEE IS THAT SHE HAD ALREADY FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010 - 11 AND 2011 - 12 BEFORE A SSESSING OFFICER RECORDED REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 AND BEFORE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. HENCE, PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 2(A) OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT ARE NOT ATTRACTED. IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGES 8 AND 17 OF PAPER BOOK, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REFERRED TO EXPLANATION 2( A ) OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERS TO EXPLANA TIO N 2(B ) OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, BUT THAT IS AN ERROR AND IN FACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RECORDED REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME. ITA NO S . 348 TO 350 /P U N/20 1 7 SMT. MANISHA RAJENDRA BHOSALE 7 12. EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 147 OF THE AC T PROVIDES THAT FOR INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, FOLLOWING INSTANCES SHALL ALSO BE DEEMED TO BE CASES WHERE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. CLAUSE (A) LAYS DOWN THAT WHERE NO RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE AS SESSEE THOUGH THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE OR ANY OTHER PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHICH HE WAS ASSESSABLE TO TAX DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR, EXCEEDED THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT, WHICH IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO INCOME TAX. CLAUSE (B) PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE RETURN OF INCOME H AS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT NO ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE AND IT IS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDER - STATED THE INCOME OR HAS CLAIMED EXCESSIVE LOSSES, DEDUCTION, ALLOWANCE OR RELIEF IN THE RETURN. THERE ARE OTHER IN STA NCES I.E. IN CLAUSE (B), (C ) TO (D), BUT WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE SAME, HENCE NOT BEING REFERRED TO. THE FIRST CLAUSE WHICH HAS BEEN APPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010 - 11 AND 2011 - 12 IS CLAUSE (A) TO EXPLANATION 2 OF SECTION 14 7 OF THE ACT. THE SAID CLAUSE CLEARLY TALKS OF AN INSTANCE WHERE NO RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT, THOUGH TALKS OF NO RETURN OF INCOME BEING FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ORIGINALLY AND NO RETURN OF INCOME BEING FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, BUT WHILE COMPUTING INCOME IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERS TO INCOME AS P ER RETURN FILED ON 18.10.2012 AT 1,97,850/ - AND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12, INCOME AS PER RETURN FILED ON 18.10.2012 OF 2,17,130/ - . IT MAY BE CLARIFIED HEREIN ITSELF THAT REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT WERE RECORDED ON 17.05.2013 I.E. MUCH LATE R THAN THE ASSESSEE HAVING FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ORIGINALLY. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, INVOKING OF EXPLANATION 2(A) OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010 - 11 AND 2011 - 12 IS NOT JUSTIFIED. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ORDER ITA NO S . 348 TO 350 /P U N/20 1 7 SMT. MANISHA RAJENDRA BHOSALE 8 PA SSED THEREON DOES NOT STAND. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE IS THUS, DELETED. 13. NOW, COMING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10, WHEREIN THE REASONS WERE RECORDED BY INVOKING EXPLANATION 2(B) OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT I.E. ACCEPTING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE RETURN OF INCOME AND NO ASSESSMENT WAS MADE AND IT WAS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD UNDER - STATED THE INCOME OR HAD CLAIMED EXCESSIVE LOSSES. ACCORDINGLY, REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 2( B ) OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 IS UPHELD. 14. NOW, COMING TO THE MERITS OF ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE, WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF HAS TAKEN NOTE OF THE FA CT THAT AS AGAINST TOTAL CASH DEPOSITS OF 14,90,193/ - , THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN GROSS RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF TUITION FEES TO THE TUNE OF 3,32,172/ - AND HER HUSBAND WHO IS JOINT HOLDER OF ACCOUNT SHOWN AT 3,83,315/ - , TOTALED TO 7,15,487/ - , THEN THE B ALANCE RECEIPTS WORKS OUT TO 7,74,706/ - . ONCE THE BANK ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HELD TO BE JOINT BANK ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND, THEN RECEIPTS OF SAID BANK ACCOUNT CANNOT BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE IN TOTALITY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACC EPTED THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE OF RECEIPTS TOTALING 3,32,172/ - IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AND 3,83,315/ - IN THE HANDS OF HUSBAND OF ASSESSEE, WHICH ARE MAJORLY SIMILAR. SO, THE BALANCE RECEIPTS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH IS JOINT BANK ACCOUNT BETWEEN THE ASS ESSEE AND HER HUSBAND CANNOT BE ADDED IN TOTALITY IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 15. ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE SAID DEPOSITS ARE BEING TREATED AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. ONCE THE RECEIPTS ITA NO S . 348 TO 350 /P U N/20 1 7 SMT. MANISHA RAJENDRA BHOSALE 9 ARE TREATED AS UNDISCL OSED RECEIPTS, THEN EXPENDITURE, IF ANY, WHICH IS RELATABLE TO SUCH UNDISCLOSED SOURCE MERITS TO BE ALLOWED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ON WITHOUT PREJUDICE NOTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD SHOWN WITHDRAWALS TO THE EXTENT OF 10,56,250/ - . TH E ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE SET OFF OF SAID WITHDRAWALS ; BUT THE SAME WAS REFUSED TO THE ASSESSEE AS THE AMOUNT WAS DRAWN FROM THE SAID BANK BY WAY OF BEARER CHEQUES, WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTES THAT PRIMA FACIE APPEARS TO BE THE TEACHERS. THE ASSESS EE HAS CLAIMED THE SAME TO BE THE PAYMENTS TO TEACHERS BUT THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WAS REFUSED AS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAD ONLY CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF 1,44,322/ - . IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FULLY DISCLOSED RECEIPTS IN ITS HANDS AND SIMULTANEOUSLY NOT CLAIMED ENTIRE EXPENDITURE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. CONSEQUENTLY, THERE IS MERIT IN THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE THAT UNDISCLOSED RECEIPTS DETERMINED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE NEED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE BEING AM OUNT PAID TO THE TEACHERS. THERE IS MERIT IN THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD AND THE SAME IS THUS, ALLOWED. ONCE THE TWO ARE SET OFF AGAINST EACH OTHER, THERE IS NO BALANCE INCOME LEFT IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THUS, THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE ON MERITS IS ALLOWED. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE APPEALS ARE THUS, ALLOWED. 1 6 . IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 18 TH DAY OF MAY , 201 8 . SD/ - (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 18 TH MAY , 201 8 . GCVSR ITA NO S . 348 TO 350 /P U N/20 1 7 SMT. MANISHA RAJENDRA BHOSALE 10 / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPON DENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 1 , AURANGABAD ; 4. THE PR. CIT - 1 , AURANGABAD ; 5. 6. , , , - / DR SMC , ITAT, PUNE; / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , / / TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE