ACIT, Cir.-3, Pune V. Shri Utkarsh Kashinath Pitre, Pune

ITA 388/PUN/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 38824514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANN KAPUSTHAMA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 143(3); 68; 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI I C SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO 388/PN/10 (ASSTT. YEAR: 2006-07) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, .. APPELLANT CIR.3, PUNE VS. SHRI UTKARSH KASHINATH PITRE, .. RESPONDENT JANARDAN DESHPANDE BUNGALOW, 76/14/, SHANGTI SHEELA SOCIETY, LAW COLLEGE ROAD, ERANDWANE, PUNE PAN AAUPP3134C APPELLANT BY: SMT ANN KAPUSTHAMA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI C H NANIWADEKAR DATE OF HEARING : 02.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.12.2011 ORDER PER G.S. PANNU, AM THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-II, PUNE DATED 10. 12.2009, WHICH IN TURN, HAS ARISEN FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 2 2.12.2008 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SH ORT THE ACT), PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN THE CAPTIONED APPEAL IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS 23,71,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 6 8 OF THE ACT. THE FACTS, AS EMERGING FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, IS A PARTNER IN THE FIRM M/S URV ASHI BEAUTY PARLOUR. THE 2 ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA 5.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS POINTED OUT THE INSTANCES OF CASH DEPOSITS IN TWO DIFFERENT BANK ACCOUNTS, B EING RS 2,89,000/- IN ABHYUDAY CO-OP. BANK AND RS 20,82,000/- IN SARASWAT CO -OP. BANK. IN CONNECTION WITH THESE DEPOSITS, A QUERY WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS TO WHY THESE DEPOSITS SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME B Y INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FILED A STATEMENT SHOWING THE WITHDRAWAL OF CASH FROM BANK ACCOUNTS AS WELL AS THE CASH DEPOSITS A LONG WITH EXPLANATION OF THE SOURCE OF THE SAME. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY WAY OF THIS CASH FLOW STATEMENT THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CASH BALANCE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF DEPOSIT OF CASH IN BANK AND THE SOURCES OF THE CASH WITHDRAWALS WERE ALSO EXP LAINED IN THIS STATEMENT. THE SOURCES WERE EXPLAINED AS WITHDRAWAL FR OM DIFFERENT BANK ACCOUNTS, INCLUDING BY WAY OF LOANS AND THROUGH CAPITAL A CCOUNT IN THE FIRM AND ADDED TO THE CASH BALANCE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. HO WEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE EXPLANATION THAT FOR ALL T HE CASH DEPOSITS, THERE WAS CASH AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND IT WAS WITHDRAWN FROM OTHER BANK ACCOUNTS, WAS A VERY GENERAL REMARK WHICH COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A S A VALID EXPLANATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS 23,71,000/- UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 3. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS), THE ASSESSEE FILED A DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON 8.12.2009 WHICH HAS BEEN EXTRACTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IN PARA 3.2 OF HIS ORDER. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON BLE GUWAHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANANDRAM RAYATANI 223 ITR 544 ( GAW) AND HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BHAICHAND H GANDHI 1 41 ITR 67 (BOM) RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE; AS ALSO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT ANY DISCREPANCY WITH REGARD TO THE SO URCE OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS WHICH THE EXPLANATION AND THE CASH FLOW ST ATEMENT WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE , THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HELD THAT IT WAS NOT A CASE WHERE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT COUL D BE SUSTAINED AND IN THAT 3 VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 6 8 AMOUNTING TO RS 23,71,000/- WAS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. AGAINST THIS ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE , APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE, HAS REFERRED TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE TO POINT OUT THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION BY FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED T O EXPLAIN THE SPECIFIC SOURCES OF THE CASH DEPOSITS AND THE ADDITION HAS BEEN D ELETED MERELY ON THE BASIS OF A GENERAL EXPLANATION THAT THE ASSESSEE WITHDR EW MONEY FROM ONE OF ITS BANK ACCOUNTS AND DEPOSITED IN OTHER ACCOUNT. ON THIS BASIS, THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SOUGHT TO BE DEFENDED. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE R ESPONDENT-ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPE ALS) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION, INASMUCH AS THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED B EFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, INTER ALIA, POINTED OUT ENTRY-WISE DETAILS OF THE CASH DEPOSITS WHICH CLEARLY PROVED THE NEXUS OF AMOUNTS HAVING BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM ONE B ANK ACCOUNT AND DEPOSITED IN OTHER ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH OTHER BANKS. IN SUPPORT, OUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN INVITED TO THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN IS PLACED CO PIES OF SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) A S WELL AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO ENTRY-WISE EXPLANATION FURNISHED . APART THEREFROM, THE LEARNED COUNSEL HAS TAKEN OBJECTION ON THE POINT OF LA W BY POINTING OUT THAT THE INVOKING OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IN THE PRESENT CASE I S UNTENABLE, INASMUCH AS THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT MAINTAIN ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONB LE GUWAHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANANDRAM RAYTANI V. CIT 223 ITR 544 (GAU ) AS ALSO THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. BHAICHAND H G ANDHI 141 ITR 67 (BOM). 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME-TAX (APPEALS) 4 DOES NOT MERIT ANY INTERFERENCE, INASMUCH AS THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS CORRECTLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADEQUA TELY EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ALONG WITH THE AVA ILABILITY OF CASH BY WAY OF WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS AND FROM OTHER SOURCES. IN THIS REGARD, THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) CONTAINED IN PARAS 3.3 AND 3.4 ARE QUITE LUCID AND WHICH ARE DETAIL ED AS UNDER: 3.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPEL LANT AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD EXPLAI NED BEFORE THE AO THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS ALONG WITH THE WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM VARIOUS BANK A CCOUNTS, AND ALSO THE DAY TO DAY CASH BALANCE AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT. IN THE C ASH-FLOW STATEMENT FILED BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM DIFFERENT BANK ACCOUNTS HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE CA SH BALANCE SHOWN WITH THE APPELLANT AND CASH DEPOSITS INTO THE BANK ACCOUNTS HAVE ALSO BEEN MADE FROM THESE CASH BALANCES. BEFORE THE AO, THE APPELLANT HAS ENCLOSED A STATEMENT SHOWING BANK SUMMARY WHICH CONTAINED DETAILS OF THE SOURCES OF F UNDS RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR INCLUDING LOAN CONFIRMATION FOR THE LOANS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SHRI NITIN VAZE. THERE WERE CERTAIN OTHER LOANS TAKEN FROM G.E. MONE Y, UTI BANK ETC., OF WHICH RELEVANT PAPERS WERE ALSO FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO. IT WAS EX PLAINED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS 95% PARTNER IN URVASHI BEAUTY PARLOUR AND HAD ALSO RECEIVED AMOUNTS FROM THIS FIRM TOWARDS CURRENT ACCOUNT WITHDRAWALS, WHICH HAVE ALSO BEEN CREDITED IN DIFFERENT BANK ACCOUNTS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE AO D ID NOT COMMENT REGARDING THESE WITHDRAWALS FROM VARIOUS SOURCES COMING INTO DIFFER ENT BANK ACCOUNTS; AS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3.4 DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ALSO THE SAME CASH-FLOW STATEMENT, WHICH WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO, HAS BEEN FURNISHED S HOWING THE WITHDRAWALS AND DEPOSITS FROM VARIOUS BANKS AND AVAILABLE CASH IN HAND, ALON G WITH EXPLANATION OF SOURCES FOR VARIOUS CASH DEPOSITS. IN RESPECT OF SOURCE OF CASH WITHDRAWALS ALSO, THE EXPLANATION GIVEN AGAINST THE WITHDRAWALS SHOWED THE RECEIPTS O F LOAN FROM SHRI NITIN VAZE AS ALSO LOANS FROM G.E. MONEY, UTI BANK ETC., WITHDRAWAL FR OM THE FIRM M/S URVASHI BEAUTY PARLOUR, FOR DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ETC. THE E NTRY-WISE EXPLANATIONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE ENTIRE FINANCIAL YEA R BEFORE THE AO. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS NOT QUESTIONED ANY OF THE EXPLANATIONS FOR ANY OF T HE DEBITS/.CREDITS SHOWN IN THIS CASH- FLOW STATEMENT FURNISHED BEFORE HIM. HE HAS ALSO NO T QUESTIONED THE LOAN CONFIRMATION GIVEN FROM SHRI NHITIN VAZE FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS 10 LAKHS WITH THE APPELLANTS LETTER DT 08.12.2008, NOR REGARDING VARIOUS PERSONAL AND OTHE R LOANS TAKEN FR4OM G.E. MONEY, UTI BANK ETC., AS ALSO WITHDRAWALS FROM THE CAPITAL ACC OUNT FROM THE FIRM M/S URVASHI BEAUTY PARLOUR. WITHOUT RAISING ANY DOUBT IN RESPECT OF TH E INDIVIDUAL ENTRIES AND THE EXPLANATION GIVEN THEREOF REGARDING THE SOURCES OF THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS, THE AO HAS SIMPLY STATED THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASS ESSEE WAS A VERY GENERAL REMARK AND AN AFTERTHOUGHT, AND PROCEEDED TO MAKE THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT, AMOUNTING TO RS 23,71,000/-. OSTENSIBLY, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS CO ME TO A FACTUAL FINDING THAT THE SOURCES OF DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNTS HAVE B EEN ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED. WE HAVE EXAMINED THE AFORESAID FINDING IN THE LIGHT OF COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS AND ENTRY-WISE DETAILS OF CASH DEPOSITS WHICH HAV E BEEN PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGES 9 TO 19. A PERUSAL OF THE AFO RESAID MATERIAL, WHOSE 5 AUTHENTICITY AND BONA FIDES HAVE NOT BEEN CHALLENGED, REVEALS THAT THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AR E BASED ON ADEQUATE AND RELEVANT MATERIAL. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COGENT RE ASONINGS MADE OUT BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US, WE, THEREFORE, FIND IT APPROPRIA TE TO AFFIRM THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). AS A RESULT THEREOF , WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS 23,71,00 0/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. ON THIS BASIS, THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IS UP HELD AND THE REVENUE FAILS ON THIS GROUND. 7. THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED IN THE APPEAL ARISES FROM THE A CTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IN DELETING AN AD DITION OF RS 23,75,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT I N ACQUISITION OF A PROPERTY AT F.C. ROAD, PUNE BY INVOKING THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 69B OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER AP PEAL, THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED A PROPERTY AT LAND SQUARE F.C. ROAD, PUN E. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UTILIZED THE CASH BALANCES AVAILABLE TO MAKE ON MONEY PAYMENTS FOR PURCHASE OF THE SAID PROPERTY AND T HUS THE ASSESSEE MADE EXCESS INVESTMENT OF RS 23,71,000/-, WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HE ACCORDINGLY INVOKED SECTION 69B OF THE ACT AND ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS 23,71,000/- AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO MATERIAL WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO HOLD THAT ASSESSEE HAD PAID ON-MONEY FOR PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY AT F.C. RO AD, PUNE. ACCORDING TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), FOR MAKING SUCH ADD ITION, THERE SHOULD BE AN EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT OF ON-MONEY WHICH HAS NOT BE EN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS PER THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX (APPEALS), IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ANY INFORMATION OR EVIDENCE RE GARDING PAYMENT OF ON- MONEY OVER AND ABOVE THE STATED PAYMENT OF RS 1,15,92 ,196/- FOR WHICH THE 6 ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN EXPLANATION WITH SOURCE, SUCH EVIDENCE SHO ULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD AND THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CON FRONTED WITH THE SAME. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) FURTHER HELD T HAT THE AMOUNT OF RS 23,71,000/- HAVING BEEN FIRST ADDED UNDER SECTION 68 FOR UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS, THE SAME AMOUNT CANNOT BE ADDED AGAIN ON THE GROUND OF UTILIZATION TOWARDS PAYMENT OF ON-MONEY AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER S ECTION 69B OF THE ACT. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEA LS) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS 23,71,000/- MADE UNDER SECTION 69B OF T HE ACT. BEING AGGRIEVED, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUPPORT THE CASE OF TH E REVENUE THAT THE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 69B WAS MAINTAINABLE. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPON DENT-ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE ORDER O F THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) INASMUCH AS THERE WAS NO MATERIAL TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED ANY AMOUNT OVER AND ABOVE THE STAT ED CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT F.C. ROAD, PUNE. 10. ON THIS ASPECT OF THE DISPUTE, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE LED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PA ID ANY ON-MONEY FOR PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY AT F.C. ROAD, PUNE. THE FINDING OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IN PARA 4.1 OF THE ORDER WHICH WE ARE TEMPTED TO EXTRACT HEREIN BELOW, CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THE FALLACY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER: 4.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE EXPLANATION OF FERED BY THE APPELLANT AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, AND I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THER E IS NO MATERIAL WITH THE AO FOR THE INFERENCE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PAID ON-MONEY FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT F.C. ROAD. FOR MAKING SUCH ADDITION, THERE HAS TO BE AN EVIDEN CE OF PAYMENT OF ON-MONEY WHICH HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD. THE AO OBTAINED THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT OF RS 1.15 CRORES FOR PURCHASE OF OFFICE AT F.C. ROAD, PUNE AL ONG WITH ITS SOURCES, COPY OF AGREEMENT WITH REGISTRATION, DOCUMENTS DURING THE A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHICH ARE ON RECORD. THE REGISTRATION DOCUMENTS SHOWED THAT W HEREAS THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF THIS PROPERTY WAS RS 1,10,11,000/-, THE MARKET V ALUE FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES WAS RS 75,12,458/-; ON WHICH STAMP DUTY WAS RS 5,50,550/- AND REGISTRATION FEES RS 30,640/- 7 WERE PAID. IF THE AO HAD ANY INFORMATION OR EVIDENC E REGARDING PAYMENT OF ON MONEY OVER AND ABOVE THIS PAYMENT OF RS 1,15,92,196/- FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE EXPLANATION WITH SOURCE, SUCH EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD AND THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONFRONTED WITH THE SAME. SECONDLY, THE AMOUNT OF RS 23,71,000/- HAS FIRST BEEN ADDED U/S 68 FOR UNEXPLA INED DEPOSIT AND THE SAME AMOUNT IS NOW ADDED FOR UTILIZATION TOWARDS PAYMENT OF ON MON EY AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69B. SUCH AN ADDITION, BEING WITHOUT ANY BASIS, CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, ALLOWED. 11. THE ENTIRE THEORY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ASSESSE E HAS PAID ON- MONEY FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IS BASED ON A SURMISE THAT THE MONIES WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT SHALL HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR ON-MONEY PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS MADE NO MISTAKE IN DIS-REGARDING SUCH AN ILL-ADVISED APPROACH OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DELETING THE ADDI TION. IT IS WELL-ESTABLISHED THAT SUSPICION CANNOT TAKE THE PLACE OF EVIDENCE AND, IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE FIND NO ERROR IN THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IN HAVING DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION ON THIS COUNT AL SO. RESULTANTLY, REVENUE FAILS ON THIS GROUND ALSO. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 13 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- (I C SUDHIR) (G .S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER PUNE, DATED: 13 TH DECEMBER, 2011 B COPY TO:- 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) THE CIT (A)-II, PUNE 4) CIT-II, PUNE 5) DR, B BENCH, ITAT, PUNE. 6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER SR. PS, I.T.A.T., PUNE 8