ITO, WARD-3(2), Nagpur V. SMT ADARSHA RAMPRAKASH BHATIA, Nagpur

ITA 373/NAG/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 93418 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 17-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D P TIWARI SHRI K P DEWANI
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Capital asset; Depreciation; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 143(3); 54F; 54

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.373/NAG/2013 & C.O.NO.22/NAG/2013 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. I.T. A. NO. 373 /NAG/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 11. THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER, SMT. ADARSHA RAMPRAKASH BHATIA, WARD - 3(2), NAGPUR. V/S. 29, BYRAMJI TOWN, N.M.V. LAYOUT, NAGPUR. PAN ABPPB4367F. APPELLANT RESPONDENT. C.O. NO.22/NAG/2013 (IN ITA NO. 373/NAG/2013) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 11. SMT. ADARSHA RAMPRAKASH BHATIA, THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER, NAGPUR. V/S. WARD - 3(2), NAGPUR. CROSS OBJECTOR. RESPONDENT. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI D.P. TIWARI. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.P. DEWANI. DATE OF HEARING : 2 5 - 05 - 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 TH JULY, 2015. O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, J.M. THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND THE CROSS OBJECTION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, BOTH EMANATING FROM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APP EALS) - II, NAGPUR DATED 08 - 07 - 2013. 2 ITA NO.373/NAG/2013 & C.O.NO.22/NAG/2013 2. A. REVENUES APPEAL. GROUND N O. 1 OF THE REVENUE S APPEAL IS REPRODUCED BELOW : ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN TREATING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54F IS ALLOWABLE TO THE APPELLANT BY IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PURCHASE NEW ASSET WITHIN 2 YEARS AS REQUIRED BY LAW. 2.1 FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDING ASSESSMENT ORDER PA SSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) DATED 18 - 12 - 2012 WERE THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED AT ` .5,65,950/ - . AN ENQUIRY WAS RAISED IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL GAIN ARISING ON SALE OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE SITUATED AT WADALA (EAST), MUMBAI FOR A CONSIDERATION OF ` .62 LAKHS. THE SAID HOUSE WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR 2002 - 03 FOR A SUM OF ` .17,15,905/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF ` .37,73,919/ - ON THE GROUND THAT AN INVESTMENT WAS MADE TOWARDS PURCHASE OF A FLAT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISCUSSED CERTAIN RELEVANT FACTS VIDE PARA 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. RELEVANT PORTION IS REPRODUCED BELOW: DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD HER RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AT WADALA (EAST), MUMBAI FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF ` .62,00,000/ - (INCLUSIVE OF FURNITURES OF ` .2,00,000/ - ). THIS HOUSE WAS PURCHASED DURING THE YEAR 2002 - 03 FOR ` .17,15,915/ - . THUS, THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM THIS TRANSACTION WORKS OUT AT ` .37,73,919/ - . THE ASSESSEE INVESTED ` .59,00,000/ - IN A FLAT AT GOREGAON (WEST), MUMBAI PURCHASED BY HER SON - IN - LAW SHRI PRATEEK PASHINE FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF ` .1,86,78,500/ - VIDE AN AGREEMENT OF SALE REGISTERED ON 29.12 .2009 ON A STAMP DUTY OF 9,16,525/ - . 3 ITA NO.373/NAG/2013 & C.O.NO.22/NAG/2013 THE ASSESSEE PAID ` .24,00,000/ - ON 24.09.2009 AND ` .35,00,000/ - ON 12.12.2009 TO THE BUILDER. THE POSSESSION OF THE FLAT WAS GIVEN BY THE BUILDER TO THE CO - OWNERS ON 18.06.2012 VIDE LETTER OF EVEN DATE. IT IS PERTIN ENT TO NOTE THAT AS ON DATE NO SALE DEED OF THE SAID FLAT HAS BEEN EXECUTED AND NO COMPLETION CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE CONCERNED CIVIC AUTHORITY. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION TO THE TUNE OF ` .37,73,919/ - UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961. 2.2 A TECHNICAL QUESTION HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IN A SITUATION WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS A CO - OWNER OF THE PROPERTY THEN THE ENTIRE PROPERTY COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING A COMPLETE SHARE IN THE PROPERTY. BY REFERRING A DECISION OF SETH BANARASIDAS GUPTA 166 ITR 783 WHEREIN A VIEW WAS EXPRESSED THAT A FRACTIONAL OWNERSHIP WAS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR CLAIMING EVEN FRACTIONAL DEPRECIATION UNDER SECTION 32, THEREFORE, ON THE SAME LINES THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN A VIEW THAT IT WAS NOT A CASE OF ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSESSEE BUT THE NEW PURCHASE OF FLAT WAS UNDER JOINT OWNERSHIP. THEREFORE, THE DEDUCTION WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE. RELEVANT PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS R EPRODUCED BELOW : THE ISSUE IS FURTHER CLARIFIED BY A REFERENCE TO SECTION 26 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WHEREIN IT IS STATED THAT WHERE A PROPERTY CONSISTING OF BUILDING OR BUILDINGS AND LAND APPURTENANT THERETO IS OWNED BY TWO OR MORE PERSONS AND THEIR SHARES ARE INDEFINITE AND NOT ASCERTAINABLE, SUCH PERSONS SHALL IN RESPECT OF SUCH PROPERTY BE ASSESSED AS AN ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE FLAT AT GOREGAON, MUMBAI, WAS PURCHASED JOINTLY OWNED BY ASSESSEE AND H ER SON - IN - LAW. IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSIONS MADE ABOVE, IT HAS TO BE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PURCHASED A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 54 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 . 4 ITA NO.373/NAG/2013 & C.O.NO.22/NAG/2013 2.3 ONE MORE OBJECTION HAS ALSO BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE FLAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETED BY SEPTEMBER, 2011 TO BE TERMED AS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COMPLETION CERTIFICATE B Y A CONCERNED CIVIL AUTHORITY, THE FLAT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS A PURCHASE OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. AFTER RAISING THESE TECHNICAL REASONS, FINALLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD THAT THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE OF ` .37,73,919/ - UNDER SECTION 5 4 WAS NOT ELIGIBLE AND THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE AT LENGTH AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SEVERAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IN THE LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCES FILED, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IN A SITUATION WHEN THE INVESTMENT IN THE FLAT BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN D ISPUTE AND THAT THE POSSESSION OF THE FLAT WAS TAKEN OVER, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE AMOUNT INVESTED TOWARDS PURCHASE OF NEW FLAT. FEW PARAGRAPHS FROM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ARE REP RODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE : 2.1 RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` .5,65,950/ - WAS FILED ON 30 - 07 - 2010. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTED BY THE LD.AO THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SOLD A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AT WADALA (EAST), MUMBAI FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 62,00,000/ - . THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AFTER DEDUCTING THE COST OF ACQUISITION WORKED OUT TO ` .37,73,919/ - . IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE LD.AO THAT THE APPELLANT HAD INVESTED ` .59,00,000/ - TO PURCHASE A FLAT IN GOREGAON, MUMBAI WHICH WAS PURCHASED ALONG WITH HER SON - IN - LAW FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF ` .1,86,78,500/ - VIDE AN AGREEMENT OF SALE REGISTERED ON 29 - 12 - 2009. THE LD.AO FURTHER NOTED THAT T HE APPELLANT HAD PAID AN AMOUNT OF ` .24 LACS ON 24.09.2009 AND ` .35 LACS ON 12 - 12 - 2009 5 ITA NO.373/NAG/2013 & C.O.NO.22/NAG/2013 TO THE BUILDER AND THAT THE POSSESSION OF THE FLAT WAS GIVEN BY THE BUILDER TO THE CO - OWNERS ON 18 - 06 - 2012. 6.4 IN A MORE RECENT JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE ITAT C B ENCH, KOLKATA IN ITA NO.1585/KOL/2012 DATED 11 - 04 - 2013 IN THE CASE OF DCIT V/S. SMT. SULBHARAJGHARIA, AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT WHERE THE APPELLANT HAD PURCHASED FLAT JOINTLY WITH HER GRANDSON IN THE RATI O OF 40:60 AND THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT QUA THE CAPITAL GAIN INVESTED IN PURCHASE OF THE JOINT PROPERTY. IT WAS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY IT. IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. CHANDABEN MAGANIAL (SUPRA) ALSO, ON SIMILAR FACTS, THE HONBLE ITAT HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT. 6.5 WITH REGARD TO THE NEXT CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETED BY THE APPELLANT WITHIN A PERIOD OF 2 YEARS FROM THE SALE OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET. VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS HAVE HELD THAT IF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY IS PAID WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD OF 2 YEARS, THAT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT COMPLIANC E SO AS TO MAKE A CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54. IT WAS HELD IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. MRS. HILLA J.B. WADIA REPORTED IN 216 ITR 376 (BOM) AS UNDER : -- - - - - - - - 6.7 THUS IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IF THE APPELLANT SELLS HIS RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND PURCHASE S A NEW HOUSE AGAINST THE SAID SALE CONSIDERATION THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING ON THE SALE OF THE EARLIER HOUSE WOULD NOT BE TAXED. THE FACT WHETHER THE APPELLANT HIMSELF CONSTRUCTS THE HOUSE OR GETS IT CONSTRUCTED BY A THIRD PARTY THAT DOES NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE AND THE BASIC REQUIREMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF RELIEF U/S 54(1) IS THAT THE APPELLANT SHOULD INVEST THE SALE PROCEEDS IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, WHICH HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED FOR APPELLANT. EVEN IN THE CASE OF KISHORE H. GALAIYA V/S. ITO MUMBAI BENCH OF THE HONBLE ITAT HAS HELD AS UNDER : - - - - - - - - -- - 6 ITA NO.373/NAG/2013 & C.O.NO.22/NAG/2013 4. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LEARNED D.R. MR. D.P. TIWARI APPEARED AND SUPPORTED THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER AND ON THE OTHER HAND, FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE, LEARNED A.R. MR. K.P. DEWANI APPEARED AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). IN ADDITION TO THE CASE LAWS DISCUSSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IN THE SAID APPELLATE ORDER, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING ORDERS: 1. (1995) 216 ITR 376 (BOM) CIT V/S. MRS. HILLA J.B. WADIA. 2. (2000) 244 ITR 352 (CAL) CIT V/S. SMT. BHARATI C. KOTHARI. 3. (2012) 150 TTJ (MUM.) 444 KISHORE H. GALAIYA V/S. ITO. 4. (2005) 3 SOT 206 (MUM.) ACIT V/S. SMT. SUNDER KAUR SUJAN SINGH GADH. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AT SOME LENGTH IN THE LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCES FILED AND THE CASE LAWS DISCUSSED. THE UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD HER RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AT WADALA FOR A CONSIDERATION OF ` .6 2 LAKHS OUT OF WHICH ` .24 LAKHS WAS INVESTED ON 24 - 09 - 2009 AND ` .35 LAKHS ON 12 - 12 - 2009 TOWARDS PURCHASE OF A FLAT SITUATED AT GOREGAON (WEST), MUMBAI. THIS FLAT WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN JOINT OWNERSHIP WITH HER SON - IN - LAW. THIS NEW FLAT WAS PURCHA SED AS PER THE REGISTERED SALE AGREEMENT DATED 29 - 12 - 2009 FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF ` .1,86,78,500/ - . THEREFORE, THE TOTAL INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TO THE TUNE OF ` .59 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPUTED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT ` .37,73,919/ - WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE I.T. ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE INVESTMENT OF ` .59 LAKHS WAS MADE TOWARDS PURCHASE OF A RESIDENTIAL FLAT. 7 ITA NO.373/NAG/2013 & C.O.NO.22/NAG/2013 6. THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE FOUND TO BE TECHNICAL IN NA TURE THE DISPUTE IS NOT IN RESPECT OF THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS PURCHASE OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL FLAT. BUT THE DISPUTE IS ABOUT THE LEGAL P R O PO SITION APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF A PROPERTY PURCHASED UNDER JOINT OWNERSHIP. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GI VEN AN EMPHASIS THAT SINCE THE PROPERTY WAS JOINTLY OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AN ABSOLUTE OWNER OF THE FLAT, HENCE NOT ENTITLED FOR THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE I.T. ACT. WE ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH SUCH TECH NICAL OBJECTION AS RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAINLY BECAUSE OF THE REASON THAT THE EXEMPTION IS GRANTED UNDER SECTION 54F ON THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT. AS PER SECTION 54F, IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE IF THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM THE TRANSFER OF A L ONG TERM CAPITAL ASSET AND THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR BEFORE OR AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE, PURCHASED OR WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AFTER THAT DATE CONSTRUCTED A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, THEN CAPITAL GAIN IS TO BE CHARG ED AS PER THE INVESTMENT MADE TOWARDS PURCHASE OF NEW CAPITAL ASSET. A LEGAL REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON SALE OF A CAPITAL ASSET IS REQUIRED TO BE INVESTED TOWARDS PURCHASE OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL HOU SE. IN THE CASE OF MRS. HILLA J.P. WADIA 216 ITR 376 (BOM.) THE ASSESSEE HAD TRANSFERRED HER SHARE IN A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TO A COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY AND PURCHASED A FLAT FROM A SOCIETY TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN A PHASE MANNER AND THE ASSESSEE HAD STAR TED PAYING INSTALMENTS. A VIEW WAS EXPRESSED THAT IN A SITUATION WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED A SUBSTANTIAL DOM AIN OVER THE FLAT BY MAKING ALMOST ENTIRE PAYMENT WITHIN TWO YEARS, THEREFORE, ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 54 OF THE I.T. ACT. THE HONB LE COURT HAS REFERRED A CBDT CIRCULAR BEARING NO. 471 DATED 15 TH OCT., 1986 FOR THE LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT IN A SITUATION WHEN AN ALLOTMENT OF FLAT UNDER A SCHEME IS GRANTED AND THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT IN INSTALMENTS, THEN 8 ITA NO.373/NAG/2013 & C.O.NO.22/NAG/2013 THE PAYMENT SHOU LD BE TREATED AS COST OF CONSTRUCTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL GAIN. LIKEWISE IN THE CASE OF SMT. BHARTI C. KOTHARI 244 ITR 352 (CAL.) IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE BASIC REQUIREMENT FOR CLAIMING RELIEF UNDER SECTION 54(1) IS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD INVEST T HE SALE PROCEEDS IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF CONSTRUCTED THE HOUSE OR IT WAS CONSTRUCTED BY A CONTRACTOR OR EVEN BY A THIRD PARTY WAS HELD AS IMMATERIAL AS FAR AS THE ENTITLEMENT OF THE DEDUCTION UNDER SEC TION 54 IS CONCERNED. IN THE LIGHT OF THE SEVERAL DECISIONS AS CITED BEFORE US, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT ONCE THE ADMITTED FACTUAL POSITION WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AT WADALA IN SEPTEMBER, 2009 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF ` .62 LAKHS AND IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER ON 24 TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 INVESTED ` .24 LAKHS AND ON 12 - 12 - 2009 INVESTED ` .35 LAKHS TOTALING ` .59 LAKHS TOWARDS COST OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL FLAT AT GOREGAON, MUMBAI WHICH WAS GOT REGISTERED THROUGH SALE OF AGREEMENT DATE D 29 - 12 - 2009 AND THE POSSESSION WAS GIVEN BY THE BUILDER ON 18 TH JUNE, 2012 I.E. WITHIN THREE YEARS FROM THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF I.T. ACT. THE VIEW TAKEN BY L EARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS HEREBY AFFIRMED AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 7. GROUND NO. 2 IS REPRODUCED BELOW: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT OF ` .2,50,000/ - WITHOUT ASSIGNING PROPER REASONING. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS OPERATING ICICI BANK AND RBI COOPERATIVE SOCIETY IN WHICH ON SEVERAL DATES DEPOSITS WERE MADE 9 ITA NO.373/NAG/2013 & C.O.NO.22/NAG/2013 TOTALING ` .4,05,000/ - . IN THE ABSENCE OF SATISFACT ORY EXPLANATION THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS EXAMINED THE FACTS AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT OUT OF ` .4,05,000/ - THE ASSESSEE WAS IN A POSITION TO SUBMIT A CONFIRMATION TO THE EXTENT OF ` .2,05,000/ - . THEREFORE, TO THAT EXTENT, RELIEF WAS GRANTED AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF ` .2 LAKHS WAS SUSTAINED. 8. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY APPRECIATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELEVANT PORTION IS REPRODUCED BELOW: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT IS 60 YEARS OLD AND WAS WORKING AS GRADE - B OFFICER WITH RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND WOULD HAVE SUFFICIENT SAVINGS OUT OF HER SALARY FROM EARLIER YEARS AND DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT CAN REASONABLY BE CONSIDERED AS EXPLAINED WITH REFERENCE TO SUCH SAVINGS. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT HER SON SHRI VISHAL BHATIA DRAWS SALARY APPROXIMATELY ` .30 LAKHS AS HIS INCOME DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THAT THE CONFIRMATION OF ` .2,50,000/ - WAS ISSUED BY HIM. I FIND CONSIDERABLE MERIT IN THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPE LLANT. HOWEVER, IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ADDRESS THE VARIOUS ISSUES RAISED BY THE LD. AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS SUSTAINABLE TO THE EXTENT OF ` .2,00,000/ - . THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF ` .2,05,000/ - . THIS GROUND IS THEREFORE PARTLY ALLOWED. 9. WE FIND NO FALLACY IN THE SAID APPRECIATION OF FACTS, HENCE THE SAME ARE HEREBY CONFIRMED AND THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO DISMISSED. 10 ITA NO.373/NAG/2013 & C.O.NO.22/NAG/2013 10. B CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF ` .2 LAKHS. WE HAVE ALREADY TAKEN A VIEW HEREIN ABOVE WHILE DECIDING THE CONNECTED GROUND AS RAISED BY THE REVENUE. WE HAVE AFFIRMED THE VIEW TAKEN BY LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE DO NOT SURVIVE. HENCE DISMISSED. 1 1 . IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL AS WELL AS THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE BOTH ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 13 TH DAY OF JULY, 2015. SD/ - SD/ - ( SHAMIM YAHYA) (MUKUL K. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. JUDICIAL MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 13 TH JULY, 2015. COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT, NAGPUR. 5. THE D.R., ITAT, NAGPUR. 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER WAKODE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, NAGPUR 11 ITA NO.373/NAG/2013 & C.O.NO.22/NAG/2013