Shri Avathan Marimuthu, Pudukottai V. ACIT, Central Circle -2, , Trichy

ITA 41/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4146 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 03-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AGAINST OF COMMISSIONER OF IN
• Keywords: Peak credit

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: CHENNAI , ! . , ' BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER , AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.35/CHNY/2018 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 SHRI SUBRAMANIAN KULANTHYAIAN, D-102, GRAY SHOOT APARTMENTS, NO.4, BISHOP GARDEN EXTENSION, R.A.PURAM, CHENNAI-600 028. VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF- INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2, TRICHY. [ PAN: AHZPK 0911 G ] ( & /APPELLANT) ( '(& /RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.155/CHNY/2018 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF- INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2, TRICHY. VS. SHRI SUBRAMANIAN- KULANTHYAIAN, D-102, GRAY SHOOT APARTMENTS, NO.4, BISHOP GARDEN EXTENSION, R.A.PURAM, CHENNAI-600 028. [ PAN: AHZPK 0911 G] ( & /APPELLANT) ( '(& /RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.36/CHNY/2018 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 SHRI A. RAMESHKUMAR, BHUVANA PALACE, NO.108, SIVA SUBRAMANIAN ROAD, NEAR D.B.ROAD, R.S.PURAM, COIMBATORE. VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF- INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2, TRICHY. [ PAN: ACFPR 5984 D ] ( & /APPELLANT) ( '(& /RESPONDENT) ITA NOS.35-38/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.40-43/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.154-156/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.158-159/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.164-168/CHNY/2018 :- 2 -: ./ ITA NOS.165 & 166/CHNY/2018 /ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2011-12 & 2014-15 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF- INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2, TRICHY. VS. SHRI A. RAMESHKUMAR, BHUVANA PALACE, NO.108, SIVA SUBRAMANIAN ROAD, NEAR D.B.ROAD, R.S.PURAM, COIMBATORE. [ PAN: ACFPR 5984 D ] ( & /APPELLANT) ( '(& /RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.40/CHNY/2018 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 SHRI RAMASAMY SUBRAMANIAN, NO.45/1039, S.K.NIVASH, MUKKANNAR STREET, KUMBAKONAM-612 001. VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF- INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY. [ PAN: BUVPS 4246 J ] ( & /APPELLANT) ( '(& /RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.41/CHNY/2018 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 SHRI AVATHAN MARIMUTHU, NO.29/94, EAST THIRD STREET, PUDUKKOTTAI-622 001. VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF- INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY. [ PAN: AAKPM 4866 C ] ( & /APPELLANT) ( '(& /RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.158/CHNY/2018 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF- INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY. VS. SHRI AVATHAN MARIMUTHU, NO.29/94, EAST THIRD STREET, PUDUKKOTTAI-622 001. [ PAN: AAKPM 4866 C] ( & /APPELLANT) ( '(& /RESPONDENT) ITA NOS.35-38/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.40-43/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.154-156/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.158-159/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.164-168/CHNY/2018 :- 3 -: ./ ITA NO.42/CHNY/2018 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 SMT. MAHESWARI, NO.113, NIZAM COLONY, PUDUKKOTTAI-622 001. VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF- INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY. [ PAN: AAIPM 6651 M ] ( & /APPELLANT) ( '(& /RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.168/CHNY/2018 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF- INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY. VS. SMT. MAHESWARI, NO.113, NIZAM COLONY, PUDUKKOTTAI-622 001. [ PAN: AAIPM 6651 M ] ( & /APPELLANT) ( '(& /RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.43/CHNY/2018 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 SHRI AVATHAN CHETTIAR SURESHKUMAR, NO.113, NIZAM COLONY, PUDUKKOTTAI-622 001. VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF- INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY. [ PAN: AGEPS 4915 J ] ( & /APPELLANT) ( '(& /RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.167/CHNY/2018 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF- INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY VS. SHRI AVATHAN CHETTIAR SURESHKUMAR, NO.113, NIZAM COLONY, PUDUKKOTTAI-622 001. [ PAN: AGEPS 4915 J] ( & /APPELLANT) ( '(& /RESPONDENT) ITA NOS.35-38/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.40-43/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.154-156/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.158-159/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.164-168/CHNY/2018 :- 4 -: ./ ITA NO.37/CHNY/2018 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 SHRI CHIDAMBARAM ARUMUGAM, NO.124A, PUDUKOTTAI ROAD, ARANTHANGI, PUDUKKOTTAI. VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF- INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY. [ PAN: A CYPA 3042 Q ] ( & /APPELLANT) ( '(& /RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.154/CHNY/2018 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF- INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY. VS. SHRI CHIDAMBARAM- ARUMUGAM, NO.124A, PUDUKOTTAI ROAD, ARANTHANGI, PUDUKKOTTAI. [ PAN: ACYPA 3042 Q ] ( & /APPELLANT) ( '(& /RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.38/CHNY/2018 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 SMT. KULANDAIAN SATHYAKALA, D-102, GRAY SHOOT APARTMENTS, NO.4, BISHOP GARDEN EXTENSION, R.A.PURAM, CHENNAI-600 028. VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF- INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY. [ PAN: BDYPS 4398 R ] ( & /APPELLANT) ( '(& /RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.164/CHNY/2018 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF- INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY. VS. SMT. KULANDAIAN SATHYAKALA, D-102, GRAY SHOOT APARTMENTS, NO.4, BISHOP GARDEN EXTENSION, R.A.PURAM, CHENNAI-600 028. [ PAN: BDYPS 4398 R ] ( & /APPELLANT) ( '(& /RESPONDENT) ITA NOS.35-38/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.40-43/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.154-156/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.158-159/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.164-168/CHNY/2018 :- 5 -: ./ ITA NO.156/CHNY/2018 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF- INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY. VS. SHRI A.ANBU KANNAN, NO.19, KASTHURIBAI ROAD, KUMBAKONAM-612 001. [ PAN: AGPPA 7635 L ] ( & /APPELLANT) ( '(& /RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.159/CHNY/2018 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF- INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY. VS. SMT. MARIMUTHU VIJAYARANI, NO.24/29, WEST MAIN STREET, PUDUKKOTTAI-622 001. [ PAN: AADPV 6328 B ] ( & /APPELLANT) ( '(& /RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE B Y : MR.S.SRIDHAR, ADV. DEPART MENT B Y : MR.SRIDHAR DORA, JCIT * /DATE OF HEARING : 31.01.2019 * /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.03.2019 / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : ITA NO.35/CHNY/2018 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE & ITA NO.155/CHNY/2018 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-19, CHENNA I, IN ITA NO.250/16-17 DATED 16.10.2017, IN THE CASE OF SHRI SUBRAMANIAN KULANTHYAIAN, FOR THE AY 2014-15. ITA NOS.35-38/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.40-43/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.154-156/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.158-159/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.164-168/CHNY/2018 :- 6 -: 2. ITA NO.36/CHNY/2018 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE AS SESSEE & ITA NOS.165 & 166/CHNY/2018 ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY TH E REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S)-19, CHENNAI, IN ITA NO.239/16-17 & IN ITA NO.240/16-17 DATED 16.10. 2017, IN THE CASE OF SHRI A. RAMESHKUMAR, FOR THE AYS 2011-12 & 2014-15 RESPECTIVELY. 3. ITA NO.40/CHNY/2018 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE AS SESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1 9, CHENNAI, IN ITA NO.242/16-17 DATED 16.10.2017, IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAMASAMY SUBRAMANIAN, FOR THE AY 2014-15. 4. ITA NO.41/CHNY/2018 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE AS SESSEE & ITA NO.158/CHNY/2018 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-19, CHENNA I, IN ITA NO.243/16-17 DATED 16.10.2017, IN THE CASE OF SHRI AVATHAN MARIMUTHU, FOR THE AY 2011-12. 5. ITA NO.42/CHNY/2018 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE AS SESSEE & ITA NO.168/CHNY/2018 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-19, CHENNA I, IN ITA NO.246/16-17 DATED 16.10.2017, IN THE CASE OF SMT. MAHESWARI, FOR THE AY 2011-12. ITA NOS.35-38/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.40-43/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.154-156/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.158-159/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.164-168/CHNY/2018 :- 7 -: 6. ITA NO.43/CHNY/2018 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE AS SESSEE & ITA NO.167/CHNY/2018 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-19, CHENNA I, IN ITA NO.248/16-17 DATED 16.10.2017, IN THE CASE OF SHRI AVATHAN CHETTIAR SURESHKUMAR, FOR THE AY 2011-12. 7. ITA NO.37/CHNY/2018 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE AS SESSEE & ITA NO.154/CHNY/2018 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-19, CHENNA I, IN ITA NO.241/16-17 DATED 16.10.2017, IN THE CASE OF SHRI CHIDAMBARAM ARUMUGAM, FOR THE AY 2011-12. 8. ITA NO.38/CHNY/2018 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE AS SESSEE & ITA NO.164/CHNY/2018 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-19, CHENNA I, IN ITA NO.249/16-17 DATED 16.10.2017, IN THE CASE OF SMT. KULANDIAN SATHYAKALA, FOR THE AY 2014-15. 9. ITA NO.156/CHNY/2018 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE R EVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1 9, CHENNAI, IN ITA NO.237/16-17 DATED 16.10.2017, IN THE CASE OF SHRI A.ANBU KANNAN, FOR THE AY 2011-12. ITA NOS.35-38/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.40-43/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.154-156/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.158-159/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.164-168/CHNY/2018 :- 8 -: 10. ITA NO.159/CHNY/2018 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1 9, CHENNAI, IN ITA NO.244/16-17 DATED 16.10.2017, IN THE CASE OF SMT. MARIMUTHU VIJAYARANI, FOR THE AY 2011-12. 11. SHRI SRIDHAR DORA, JCIT, REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SHRI S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE, REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEES. 12. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.DR THAT ALL THE ASSE SSEES ARE INDIVIDUALS BELONGING TO A GROUP OF PERSONS HAILING FROM THE SA ME PLACE WHO ARE ALL RELATED EITHER BY BLOOD OR BY MARRIAGE AND ENGAGED IN MONEY LENDING BUSINESS ON A LARGE SCALE ON CASH BASIS. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSES SEES ARE ENGAGED IN MONEY LENDING AND BROKERAGE IN MONEY LENDING. THE ASSESSEES WERE NOT MAINTAINING ANY REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ON DAY TO DAY BASIS. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THEY HAVE BEEN MAKING ADVANCES FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME AND THE ASSESSEES DO NOT MADE ADVANCES TO T HE SAME PERSON DURING THE PENDENCY OF EARLIER ADVANCE. IT WAS A S UBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEES HAD CLAIMED THAT THE COLLECTION ADVANCES MADE ARE THE SOURCES FOR THE DEPOSITS OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS. IT WAS A SU BMISSION THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S.144 AND FROM THE BANK STATEMENTS GATHERED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND FURNISHED BY THE ASS ESSEES, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEES MADE SUBSTANTIAL DEPOSIT S IN THE BANK ITA NOS.35-38/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.40-43/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.154-156/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.158-159/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.164-168/CHNY/2018 :- 9 -: ACCOUNTS. THE AO HAD IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSME NT TREATED ALL THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEES. CONSEQUENTLY, THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT S ARE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED AND TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEES FOR THE RELEVANT AYS. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT ON APPEAL, LD.CIT(A) HAD H ELD THAT THE ENTIRE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS CANNOT BE TREATE D AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEES AND HAD HELD THAT THE ONLY PEAK CREDITS W ERE LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF TH E LD.CIT(A) WAS LIABLE TO BE REVERSED. 13. IN REPLY, LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION AS MADE BY THE AO BY TREATING THE ENTIRE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOU NTS OF THE ASSESSEES AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEES, WAS ERRONEOUS. IT WAS ALSO A SUBMISSION THAT THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDE RED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEES AND OUGHT NOT TO HAVE CONFIRMED THE A DDITION IN RESPECT OF THE PEAK CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESS EES. THE ALTERNATE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEES WERE THAT THE ISSUES IN THE SE APPEAL WERE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ONE SHRI A. ANBUKKANNAN IN ITA NO.17 31/MDS/2014 AND ITA NO.1871/MDS/2014 FOR THE AYS 2010-11 VIDE ORDER DAT ED 05.04.2014, WHEREIN, THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL HAD HELD AS FOLLOWS: 7. NOW BEFORE US, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE S TRONGLY ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SUBMITTED THAT EXISTENCE OF MONEY LENDING BUSINESS WAS PROVED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO HIM, AGGREGATE DEPOSITS RS.3,67,75,800/- WITH THE BANK A CCOUNT REPRESENTED INVESTMENT OF THE ITA NOS.35-38/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.40-43/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.154-156/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.158-159/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.164-168/CHNY/2018 :- 10 -: ASSESSEE IN HIS MONEY LENDING BUSINESS AND NO EXPLA NATION WAS OFFERED FOR THE SOURCE THEREOF. ACCORDING TO HIM, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS) HAD APPLIED THE PEAK CREDIT PRINCIPLE WHEN ASSESSEE COULD NOT SHOW THAT THE DEPOSITS WERE MADE OUT OF EARLIER WITHDRAWALS. 8. CONTRA, AND IN SUPPORT OF ITS OWN APPEAL, LD. AU THORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THOUGH HE C ORRECTLY APPLIED PEAK CREDIT PRINCIPLE ERRED IN SUSTAINING ADDITIONS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2 1,80,646/-. AS PER LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE PRESUMPTION THAT ASSESSEE HAD EARNED AGENCY COMMISSION OF RS.3,67,758/- WAS INCORRECT. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PER USED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE THAT ASSES SEE HAD BOTH CASH DEPOSITS AS WELL AS CASH WITHDRAWALS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITH AXIS BANK ACCOUNTS WITH PUDUKKOTTAI AND T. NAGAR BRANCH. THOUGH LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD LISTE D OUT THE MAJOR TRANSACTIONS AT PARAGRAPH 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, A DATE WISE AN ALYSIS OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE NOT DONE. ASSESSEE CAN ALWAYS SAY THAT CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT HAD COME OUT OF AN EARLIER CASH WITHDRAWAL AS LONG AS THE TIME INTERVA L BETWEEN THE WITHDRAWALS AND DEPOSITS ARE NOT SO SIGNIFICANTLY SUBSTANTIAL TO DISBELIEVE THE SOURCE. WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON ANY MONEY LENDING BUSINESS, HAS NO RELE VANCE WHEN AN ASSESSMENT IS MADE CONSIDERING THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOU NTS. HOWEVER, IN OUR OPINION CASH DEPOSITS ALONE CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT OF AN ADDITION IGNORING THE CASH WITHDRAWALS. HENCE, FINDING OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT PEAK CREDIT OF RS.18,12,888/- ALONE COULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE ADDITION C ANNOT BE FAULTED. IN SO FAR AS TRANSACTIONS OTHER THAN CASH ARE CONCERNED, IT MAY BE TRUE THAT ASSESSEE WAS EARNING COMMISSION FROM MONEY LENDING. HOWEVER, THE FINDING OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT ASSESSEE WAS EARNING 1% COMMISSIO N OF THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS ONLY A SURMISE. EVEN IF THERE WERE SOME COMMISSION EARNINGS IT GETS SUBSUMED IN THE PEAK CREDIT OF RS.18,12,888/- CONSI DERED FOR ADDITION. THE FURTHER ADDITION OF RS.3,67,758/- WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, SUCH ADDITION STANDS DELETED. 14. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. 15. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT TH E AO TREATED THE ENTIRE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE AS SESSEES AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEES. IT IS ALSO AN ACCEPTED FA CT BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEES HAVE BEEN DOING MONEY LENDING BUSINESS IN THE EARLIER YEARS ALSO. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) SHOW S THAT THE LD.CIT(A) IN PARA NO.8 OF HIS ORDER HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE OF TH E MONEY LENDING BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSESE AND ISSUE OF CIRCULATING CAPITAL. AFTER EXAMINING ITA NOS.35-38/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.40-43/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.154-156/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.158-159/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.164-168/CHNY/2018 :- 11 -: THE SAME, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS COME TO A CATEGORICAL F INDING THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY REASON FOR TAXING GROSS AMOUNT OF CAS H DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS. HE HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THE JUDICIAL DECIS IONS AND HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT JUDICIAL DECISIONS HAVE NOT SUPPORTED BRINGING THE GROSS AMOUNTS FOR TAXATION WHEN THERE HAVE BEEN BOTH DEPO SITS AND WITHDRAWALS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS AT REGULAR INTERVALS. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT PEAK CREDITS IN SUCH SITUATION RENDER S THE BEST METHOD OF ADDITION. THOUGH IN THE CALCULATION OF THE PEAK CRE DIT, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF SET OFF OF THE OPENING CASH BA LANCE AND OPENING ADVANCE, WHEN PEAK CREDIT IS BEING CONSIDERED, AND WHEN THE BUSINESS IS THE SAME AS CARRIED ON IN THE EARLIER YEARS, IT IS THE PEAK CREDIT OF THE EARLIER YEAR THAT IS LIABLE TO BE CONSIDERED AS AVA ILABLE FOR EXPLAINING THE PEAK CREDIT OF THE CURRENT YEAR. HOWEVER, WE ARE N OT DIRECTING THIS METHOD TO BE APPLIED AS THE ASSESSEES HAVE NOT RAIS ED ANY GROUND FOR THIS CLAIM, AND ALSO BECAUSE SUCH A CLAIM WOULD REQUIRE VERIFICATION OF FACTS AND CONSEQUENTLY SUCH A GROUND CANNOT BE RAISED AS A FRESH OR ADDITIONAL GROUND AT THIS STAGE. THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT ANY ERROR IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A). FURTHER, U NDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES IN RESPECT OF ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE S AME GROUP BEING SHRI A. ANBUKKANNAN, THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUN AL HAS ALSO UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN ADOPTING THE PEAK CRED ITS. THIS BEING SO, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT (A) WHICH CALLS FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ITA NOS.35-38/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.40-43/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.154-156/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.158-159/CHNY/2018 ITA NOS.164-168/CHNY/2018 :- 12 -: 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESS EE AS ALSO APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 13 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019, IN CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ! /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) ! /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 0 /DATED: 13 TH MARCH, 2019. TLN * '12 32 /COPY TO: 1. & /APPELLANT 4. 4 /CIT 2. '(& /RESPONDENT 5. 2 ' /DR 3. 4 ( ) /CIT(A) 6. /GF