ACIT, Alwar V. KAMLA LAMBA, BHIWADI

ITA 395/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2059 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 26-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: KRANTI MEHTA CA DHK
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Depreciation
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 395/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2, ALWAR. CUKE VS. SMT. KAMLA LAMBA PROP. M/S KAMAL WIRES, BEHIND 220 KVA, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWADI, ALWAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. ABKPL 0295 R VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI R.A. VERMA (ADDL. CIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KRANTI MEHTA (CA) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 28.08.2017. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15/09/2017. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM. THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A)-22, ALWAR, DATED 26.02.2016 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2011-12. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS & CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS FOR RS. 55,94,288/-. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON THE FACTS & CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO OUT OF DEPRECIATION ON AIR CONDITIONERS WHICH WERE NOT PUT TO USE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON THE FACTS & CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO ON ACCO UNT OF BUILDING REPAIR EXPENSES OF RS. 5,97,825/-. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON THE FACTS & CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO ON ACCO UNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS FOR RS. 14,85,000/-. 2 ITA NO.395/JP/2016. SMT. KAMLA LAMBA, ALWAR. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR AL TER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF APPEAL IS FINALLY H EARD FOR DISPOSAL. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT, T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMEN T WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REF ERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE ORDER DATED 31.01.2014. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT, TH E AO MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNVERIFIED UNSECURED LOANS OF RS. 55,94,288/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT AS PER AUDIT REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED UNSECURED LOANS FROM SHRI GAURAV OF RS. 2,81,385/-, K.C. INDUSTRIES OF RS. 33,97,410/- AND BANK OF BARODA OF RS. 21,96,878/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER M ADE ADDITION AS THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATIVE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THESE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF DEPRECIATION OF RS . 13,305/-, DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VI-A OF THE ACT OF RS. 6,750/-, DISALLOWANC E U/S 40(A)(IA) OF RS. 4,72,848/-, DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF THE EXPENSES COVERED UND ER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 OF RS. 19,74,100/- AND ALSO MADE DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF BUILDING REPAIR EXPENSES OF RS. 5,97,825 /-. FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSI TS OF RS. 14,85,000/- AND ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 22 ,544/-. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS PARTLY ALLOWE D THE APPEAL. WHILE PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADD ITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNVERIFIED UNSECURED LOANS OF RS. 58,75,673/-. LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE ON DEPRECIATION AND RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,47,328/- AS AGAINST RS. 3 ITA NO.395/JP/2016. SMT. KAMLA LAMBA, ALWAR. 4,72,848/- MADE BY INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTIO N 40A(IA) OF THE ACT. LD. CIT(A) FURTHER DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF THE EXPENDITURE FOLLOWING U/S 43B OF THE ACT, IN RESPECT OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDIT URE RELATED TO BUILDING REPAIRS THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE SAME, IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAI NED CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 14,85,000/- THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE SAME. HOWEV ER, IN RESPECT OF ADHOC EXPENSES, THE GROUND WAS NOT PRESSED BEFORE LD. CIT (A), THEREFORE, SAME WAS REJECTED. 4. NOW, THE REVENUE IS IN PRESENT APPEAL. 5. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST DELETING THE AD DITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS FO R RS. 55,94,288/-. 5.1 LD. D/R VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) W AS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS GIV EN A CATEGORICALLY FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, GENU INITY AND CREDIT-WORTHINESS OF THE UNSECURED LOANS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FILE NEITHER THE A/C STATEME NT NOR THE DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE LOANS WERE NOT SUBJECT TO VERIFICATI ON. 5.2 PER CONTRA LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORT ED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 5.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN P ARA 4.5 TO 4.10 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH IS READS AS UNDER:- 4.5 I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS REMAND REPORT OF THE AO, SUBMISSIONS MADE INCLUDING JUDICIAL CITATIONS A ND CROSS REPLY OF THE APPELLANT AND FIND THAT AN ADDITION OF RS. 58,75,67 3/- HAS BEEN MADE BY THE 4 ITA NO.395/JP/2016. SMT. KAMLA LAMBA, ALWAR. AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS U/S 68 OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT. AO HAS STATED THAT APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO FURNISH THE DET AILS AS REQUIRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IN R ESPECT OF THE LOANS RAISED FROM THE FOLLOWING PERSONS:- A. GAURAV RS. 2,81,385 B. K.C. INDUSTRIES RS. 33,97,410 C. BANK OF BARODA RS. 21,96,878 TOTAL RS. 58,75,673 4.6 THE APPELLANT HAS IN THE COURSE OF APPELLANT PR OCEEDINGS FILED COMPLETE DETAILS OF CONFIRMATION OF THE CREDITORS, COPY OF T HE BANK ACCOUNT, COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS AND OTHER DETAILS ETC. WHICH WERE FORWARDED TO THE AO FOR EXAMINATION. AO HAS IN THE REMAND REPORT REITERATED THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND STATED THAT APPELLANT HAS FAIL ED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS PLACED UPON HIM U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 4.7 THE APPELLANT HAS FILED A COPY OF THE LEDGER AC COUNT OF THE LOANS OF SH. GAURAV DULY CONFIRMED ALONG WITH A COPY OF HIS ELEC TION CARD, COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE CREDITORS AND ITS STATED THAT THE LO AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2,81,385/- IS AN OPENING BALANCE WHICH IS BEING CARRIED FORWAR D FROM THE PRECEDING YEAR. AS REGARDS AN AMOUNT OF RS. 33,97,410 IS CONCERNED A COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT WITH CONFIRMATION OF THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S K.C. IND USTRIES, SH. V.N. GUPTA HAS BEEN FILED. A COPY OF THE PHOTO I.D. CARD ALONG WI TH A COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT AND LEDGER ACCOUNT FOR THE SUCCEEDING THREE YEARS HAS BEEN FILED TO PROVE THAT LOAN HAS BEEN REPAID THROUGH THE BANKING CHANNELS. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FILED A COPY OF THE LOAN SANCTION LETTER F ROM THE BANK TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CREDIT OF RS. 21,96,878/- FROM BANK OF BARODA. 4.8 HAVING CONSIDERED THE DETAILS EVIDENCE PLACED O N RECORD IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, I FIND THAT AS REGARDS TH E LOAN RECEIVED FROM MR. GAURAV IS CONCERNED; NO ADDITION IS WARRANTED AS TH E AMOUNT OF LOAN HAS BEEN CARRIED FORWARD FROM THE PREVIOUS YEARS. FURT HER, AS REGARDS A LOAN OF RS. 33,97,410 FROM K.C. INDUSTRIES IS CONCERNED, I FIND THAT APPELLANT HAS FILED 5 ITA NO.395/JP/2016. SMT. KAMLA LAMBA, ALWAR. A COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION ALONG WITH PAN, PHOTO ID OF THE PROPRIETOR OF K.C. INDUSTRIES AND ALSO IT IS STATED THAT THE SAID FIRM WAS A REGISTERED DEALER HAVING VAT/CST NUMBER AS WELL AS CENTRAL EXCISE RE GISTERED NUMBER. A COPY OF THE PURCHASE BILLS FROM MATERIAL PURCHASED FROM THE FIRM HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD AND ALSO PROOF OF CLOSURE OF THAT BUSINES S IN THE RECORDS OF STATE GOVERNMENT AS ON 31.03.2013 HAS BEEN FILED. THE AP PELLANT HAS ALSO FILED A COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 30,00,000 ON 31.03.2015 VIDE CHEQUE NO. 000902. TH US, CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTORS, I DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION IN T HE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING AN ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT. 4.9 FURTHER, AS REGARDS THE LOAN OF RS. 21,96,878/- FROM BANK OF BARODA IS CONCERNED, THE APPELLANT HAS PLACED ON RECORD A COP Y OF THE SANCTION LETTER OF THE BANK FOR THE OD LIMIT OF RS. 21,80 LAKHS. THUS , I FIND THAT APPELLANT HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS PLACED UPON HIM U/S 68 OF THE I T ACT. 4.10 THUS, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I HOLD THAT HERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING A D ISALLOWANCE ON THIS ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, I DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 58,75,673 MADE BY THE AO UNDER THIS HEAD. 5.4 THE ABOVE FINDING ON FACT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NO T REBUTTED BY THE REVENUE BY PLACING ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD. THEREFORE , THIS FINDING ON FACT WITHOUT ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL IN OUR VIEW CANNOT BE DISTURBED. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. GROUND NO. 2, IS AGAINST DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A O OUT OF DEPRECIATION ON AIR CONDITIONERS. 6.1 LD. D/R SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS GIVEN A FINDI NG ON FACT THAT THE AIR CONDITIONERS WERE NOT USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AN D WERE INSTALLED AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. D/R DREW OUR ATTENTI ON TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER 6 ITA NO.395/JP/2016. SMT. KAMLA LAMBA, ALWAR. WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE COPY OF BILL FILED, THE BILL HAS BEEN ISSUED IN THE NAME OF SH. PARVEEN LAMBA WHICH HAS BEEN STRIKE THROUGH AND ABOVE IT KAMLA WIRES HAS BEEN WRITTEN. AS PER THE BILLS, THESE AIR-CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN DELIVERED AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE I.E . 47, ASHIANA GULMOHAR, BHIWADI AND NOT AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMIT TED THAT, FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS SUPPLIED IN RESPECT OF THE PURCHASES OF COMPUTER AND TELEVISION. 6.2 ON THE CONTRARY, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S UPPORTED THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A). 6.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN P ARA 5.5. OF HIS ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 5.5 I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS REMAND REPORT OF THE AO, SUBMISSIONS MADE INCLUDING JUDICIAL CITATIONS A ND CROSS REPLY OF THE APPELLANT AND FIND THAT A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 13,30 5 WAS MADE BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT PURCHASE BILLS OF THE ASSETS PURCHA SED DURING THE YEAR COULD NOT BE PRODUCED. THE APPELLANT HAS IN THE COURSE O F PRESENT PROCEEDINGS FILED A COPY OF THE PURCHASE BILL FOR COMPUTER AND TV ON WHICH DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN CLAIMED. THEREFORE, I HOLD THAT THERE IS N O JUSTIFICATION IN THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING A DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION. THUS, I DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 13,305 MADE BY THE AO ON THIS A CCOUNT. 6.4 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING ON FACT, THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED COPY OF PURCHASE BILL FOR COMPUTER AND TELEVISION. 6.5 IN OUR VIEW, IT IS SUFFICIENT TO PLACE ON RECOR D THE PURCHASE BILLS BUT SOME EVIDENCE SUGGESTING THAT ASSETS WAS TO BE USE FOR B USINESS PURPOSE IN THE ABSENCE 7 ITA NO.395/JP/2016. SMT. KAMLA LAMBA, ALWAR. OF SUCH EVIDENCE IN OUR VIEW, NO DEPRECIATION CANNO T BE ALLOWED. THEREFORE, THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS REVERSED AND THE FINDING OF THE AO IS RESTORED. THUS, GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. 7. GROUND NO. 3 , IS AGAINST IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY T HE AO ON ACCOUNT OF BUILDING REPAIR EXPENSES FOR RS. 5,97,82 5/-. 7.1 LD. D/R SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 7.2 ON THE CONTRARY, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S UPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 7.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, THE LD. CI T(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING ON THIS ISSUE IN PARA 8.5 TO 8.7 OF HIS ORDER AS UNDER :- 8.5 I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS REMAND REPORT OF THE AO, SUBMISSIONS MADE INCLUDING JUDICIAL CITATIONS A ND CROSS REPLY OF THE APPELLANT AND FIND THAT IN ADDITION OF RS. 5,97,825 HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF BUILDING REPAIR EXPENSES CLAIMED BY T HE APPELLANT. THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE GROUND THAT NO BILLS OF THE SAME CO ULD BE FILED AND ALSO THE EXPENSES CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIR ARE DISPROPOR TIONATELY HIGHER AS COMPARED TO THE VALUE OF THE BLOCK OF ASSETS UNDER THIS HEAD. 8.6 THE APPELLANT HAS IN THE COURSE OF PRESENT PROC EEDINGS FILED A COPY OF ALL THE BILLS OF BUILDING REPAIRS ALONG WITH A COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE PARTY, COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT THROUGH WHICH PAYME NTS HAVE BEEN MADE AND TDS CHALLANS ETC. TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. A COPY OF THE COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT CHALLAN SHOWING CLOSURE OF THE BUS INESS BY THE SAID PARTY ON 31.3.2013 HAS BEEN FILED BY THE APPELLANT. 8.7 HAVING CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD , I FIND THAT APPELLANT HAS BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THAT EXPENSES WERE INCURRED ON REPAIRS, PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH THE BANKING CHANNELS AND TDS WAS MADE ON SUCH PAYMENTS AND THEREFORE, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION I N MAKING A DISALLOWANCE UNDER THIS HEAD. AS REGARDS, THE VALUE OF OPENING WDV OF THE BLOCK IS 8 ITA NO.395/JP/2016. SMT. KAMLA LAMBA, ALWAR. CONCERNED IT IS ONLY A DEPRECIATED BOOK VALUE AND T HUS, THE AMOUNT OF REPAIRS BEING TOO HIGH CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR MAKING THE DI SALLOWANCE. HENCE, I DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 5,97,825 MADE BY THE AO UNDER THIS HEAD. 7.4 THIS FINDING ON FACT IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE BY PLACING ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE INTO THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A), SAME IS HEREBY AFFIR MED. THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8. GROUND NO. 4 IS AGAINST IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY TH E AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS FOR RS. 14,85, 000/-. 8.1 LD. D/R SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AO OBSERVED THAT, THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED CASH OF RS . 4,85,000/- ON 22.02.2011, RS. 2,50,000/- ON 05.03.2011 AND RS. 7,50,000/- ON 04.0 3.2011 IN ITS HDFC BANK A/C. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASS ESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR VERIFICATION. LD. D/R SUBMITTED TH AT THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REMAND REP ORT STATED THAT ON PERUSAL OF CASH BOOK IT IS REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN OPE NING CASH BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2010 OF RS. 22,28,531/- WHEREAS AS PER INCOME TAX RETURN FILED FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11 CASH IN HAND AS ON 31.3.2010 WAS SHOWN AT R S. 2,87,338/- ONLY. IT IS ALSO RECORDED BY THE AO IN REMAND REPORT THAT THE ASSESS EE WAS MAINTAINING BANK A/C NO. 17189 WITH HDFC AND A/C NO. 87603 WITH PNB BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COOPERATE BY WAY NOT FURNISHING THE REQUISITE DETAI LS OR PRODUCTION OF COPY OF BANK BOOK OF PNB ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE FACTS, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 9 ITA NO.395/JP/2016. SMT. KAMLA LAMBA, ALWAR. 8.2 ON THE CONTRARY, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE R EITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 8.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, THE LD. CI T(A) DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 9.5 TO 9.7 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UND ER:- 9.5 I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS REMAND REPORT OF THE AO, SUBMISSIONS MADE INCLUDING JUDICIAL CITATIONS A ND CROSS REPLY OF THE APPELLANT AND FIND THAT AN ADDITION OF RS. 14,85,00 0/- HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT NO EXPLANATION COULD BE GIVEN TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SOUR CES OF DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. 9.6 THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT CASH IN HAND AS P ER THE CASH BOOK WAS USED FOR DEPOSITING CASH IN THE OD ACCOUNT. IT IS STATED THAT CASH IN HAND ON 01.04.2010 WAS NOT RS. 2,87,338 BUT WAS RS. 22,28,5 30 AND OD ACCOUNT BALANCE WAS RS. 55,47,732. DUE TO PRESSURE FROM THE BANK, CASH IN HAND BALANCE WAS REDUCED BY DEBITING THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE PROPRIETOR SMT. KAMLA LAMBA AND CREDITING THE SUNDRY CREDITOR ACCOU NT OF K.C. INDUSTRIES. THESE ENTRIES WERE HOWEVER, REVERSED ON THE VERY NE XT DAY. THE APPELLANT HAS FILED COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF ALL THE PARTIES TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CONTENTIONS. THE EVIDENCE FILED IN THE COURSE OF P RESENT PROCEEDINGS WAS EXAMINED BY THE AO AND HAS REITERATED THE CONTENTIO NS AS STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 9.7 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MAD E AND FIND THAT ENTRIES HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF SMT. KAMLA LAMBA OF RS. 19,41,192 AND ALSO THE CORRESPONDING ENTRIES WERE MADE IN THE CASH ACCOUNT AND OF M/S K.C. INDUSTRIES, A SUNDRY CREDITOR. THEREFORE, THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH IN HAND WAS INCREASED ON 01.04.2010 AFTER REVERSING THESE E NTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, I HOLD THAT CASH DEPOSITS WERE MADE OUT OF 10 ITA NO.395/JP/2016. SMT. KAMLA LAMBA, ALWAR. THE BALANCE AVAILABLE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. TH US, I FIND NO JUSTIFICATION IN THE ACTION OF THE AO AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 14,85,000/- MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT. 8.4 WE FIND THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT REBUTTED THE F INDING ON FACT AS ARRIVED AT, BY THE LD. CIT(A), ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE HIM. WE THEREFORE, DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT INTO THE GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL, SAME IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 395/JP/2016 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 15 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017. SD/- SD/- ( HKKXPUN ( DQY HKKJR ) ( BHAGCHAND) ( KUL BHARAT ) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 15/09/2017. POOJA/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2, ALWAR. 2. THE RESPONDENT SMT. KAMLA LAMBA PROP. M/S KAMA L WIRES, ALWAR. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 395/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR