Anil Sureshchandra Mundada, Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 424/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7291 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-08-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: HARI KRISHAN
• Keywords: Capital asset

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUNE . , , , BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO . 424 /P U N/201 5 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 10 - 11 ANIL SURESHCHANDRA MUNDADA, OFFICE NO. 3 & 4, RAJYOG CREATIONS APARTMENTS, ABOVE HDFC BANK, ANAND PARK, PUNE 411007 PAN : ABEPM4558L ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3, PUNE / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : S HRI HARI KRISHAN REVENUE BY : SHRI AJAY MODI / DATE OF HEARING : 10 - 08 - 2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06 - 1 1 - 2017 / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : TH IS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 3, PUNE DATED 23 - 12 - 2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11. 2 ITA NO . 424/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2010 - 11 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RECORD S ARE: THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT ALONG WITH TWO OTHER PERSONS FOR PURCHASE OF LAND AT CHANDKHED, TAL.: MAVAL, DISTT.: PUNE COMPRISING IN GUT NO. 434 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.2.50 CRORES. THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS JOINTLY OWNED BY SATTAR QUADAR INAMDAR ALONG WIT H OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS. RS.75 LAKHS WAS PAID AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION AND REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED ON 21 - 09 - 2007. THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION WAS PAID OVER THE PERIOD OF TIME AS SET OUT IN THE SALE DEED. THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING BANK ACCOUN T WITH IDBI BANK WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HA D DEPOSITED CASH AGGREGATING TO RS.59,30,000/ - ON SEVERAL DATES BETWEEN 11 - 12 - 2009 TO 25 - 03 - 2010. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT CASH WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT IN AN ANTICIPATION TO SETTLE THE CLAIM OF PERSONS WHO HAD RAISED OBJECTIONS IN RESPONSE TO PUBLIC NOTICE WITH RESPECT TO SALE OF LAND AT VILLAGE - CHANDKHED. WHEN THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO REACH ANY SETTLEMENT WITH OBJECTORS, THE SAME CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISBELIEVED THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED UNACCOUNTED CASH IN THE BANK AND THUS , MADE ADDITION U/S. 69A O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) . AGGRIEVED BY THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER DATED 25 - 03 - 2013, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , ASSAILING THE ADDITION OF RS.59,30,000/ - U/S. 69A OF THE ACT. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALSO REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. SHRI HARI KRISHAN APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED LAND IN 2007 AT VILLAGE - CHANDKHED ALONG 3 ITA NO . 424/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2010 - 11 WITH TWO OTHER PERSONS. AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF SALE DEED , THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE VENDORS HAVE ALREADY ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF LAND WITH SOME OTHER PERSONS. PUBLIC NOTICE WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE INVITING OBJECTIONS , IF ANY O N TRANSFER OF LAND IN QUESTION. IT WAS THEREAFTER THAT OBJECTIONS WERE RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS PERSONS. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHER TWO PURCHASERS HAD PAID SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF SALE DEED THE ASSESSEE DECIDED TO SETTLE THE CLAIM OF OBJ ECTORS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HA D TO KEEP CASH RESERVE READY IN HAND. THE ASSESSEE WITHDREW THE CASH ON VARIOUS DATES IN DECEMBER, 2009 AND DEPOSITED THE SAME CASH ON 9 OCCASIONS BETWEEN 11 - 12 - 2009 TO 25 - 03 - 2010. THE LD. AR IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIO NS REFERRED TO BANK PASSBOOK AT PAGES 1 AND 2 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT CASH WITHDRAWN WAS IMMEDIATELY RECORDED IN THE CASH BOOK. A COPY OF CASH BOOK FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2009 - 10 IS AT PAGES 3 TO 8 OF THE PAPER BOOK. REFERRING TO CASH B OOK THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT WHENEVER CASH WAS WITHDRAWN FROM BANK FOR SETTLEMENT, IT IS RECORDED CASH WITHDRAWN FOR PAYMENT OF CHANDKHED LAND. THE LD. AR POINTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SETTLED THE CLAIM OF TWO OBJECTORS NAMELY MR. JITENDRA AMOLAKCHAND KHAT ARE AND MR. CHANDRAKANT SUBHANA MARWAD IN FEBRUARY, 2008 VIDE D EED O F C ONSENT ( AT PAGES 53 TO 58 OF THE PAPER BOOK ). THE LD. AR TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT LAND WAS UNDER LITIGATION REFERRED TO SUIT FOR SPECIFIC P ERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT WITH AN ALTERNATE PRAYER S EEKING DAMAGES FILED BY ONE M/S. OM SAI DEVELOPERS AGAINST THE VENDORS AND THE ASSESSEE QUA SAME LAND ( AT PAGES 65 TO 69 OF THE PAPER BOOK ) . THE LD. AR POINTED THAT THE COP IES OF OBJECTIONS (AT PAGES 35 TO 52 OF THE PAPER BOOK) AND THE COPY OF PLAINT CLEA RLY INDICATE THAT THERE WERE SEVERAL PARTIES WHO WERE ASSERTING THEIR INTEREST IN THE LAND IN ONE MANNER OR THE OTHER. THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO SETTLE THE CLAIM OF ALL THE PERSONS TO HAVE A CLEAR TITLE. 4 ITA NO . 424/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2010 - 11 THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN SUFFICIENT CASH BALANCE TO MEET SUCH CONTINGENCIES. THE LD. AR POINTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FOUND NO FAULT WITH THE CASH IN HAND AS PER CASH BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, NO NEGATIVE CASH BALANCE HAS BEEN ALLEGED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALLEGED THAT CASH WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK WAS UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SETTLE THE CLAIMANTS. THE CASH DEPOSITS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM UNACCOUNTED SOURCE GENERATED OUT OF THE BOOKS. THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE CASH WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS UTILIZED TOWARDS SETTLING THE CLAIM OF THE OBJECTORS OR FOR SOME OTHER PURPOSE AND THE SAME CASH WAS NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR DEPOSITING BACK IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. T HE FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER ARE PURELY BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJUNCTURES. THE LD. AR FURTHER POINTED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WHILE REJECTING THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE S EXPLANATION WITH RESPECT TO CHANDKHED LAND AND ITS SETTLEMENT IN OCTOBER, 2007 AND FEBRUARY, 2008 DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE SAID FINDINGS BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ARE AGAINST THE FACTS. THE ASSESSEE HAD NEVER PRODUC ED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD BETWEEN OCTOBER, 2007 TO FEBRUARY, 2008. THE PROXIMITY OF WITHDRAWAL AND DEPOSIT TRANSACTIONS SUPPORTS THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT S DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ARE THE SAME THAT WERE EARLIER WITHDRAWN FROM BANK . THE LD. AR IN SUPPORT OF HIS EXPLANATION THAT ROTATION OF MONEY CANNOT BE DISBELIEVED DRAWS STRENGTHEN FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : 5 ITA NO . 424/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2010 - 11 I . GURPREET SINGH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 157 ITD 262 (CHANDIGARH - TRIB.); II . SHIVCHARAN DASS VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 126 ITR 263 (P & H); III . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MANOJ INDRAVADAN CHOKSHI, 229 TAXMAN 56 (GUJARAT); IV . SHRI VIKRAM DEOKISAN SARDA VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN ITA NO. 277/M/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 DECIDED ON 05 - 12 - 2012 ; V . MOONGIPA IN VESTMENT LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 30 TAXMANN.COM 113 (DELHI - TRIB.); VI . SHRI ISHAQ HABIB BALWA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER IN ITA NO. 2365/MUM/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 DECIDED ON 21 - 02 - 2014. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND SHRI AJAY MODI REPRESENTING THE DEPARTM ENT VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 69A OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF PERSONS WHOSE CLAIM THE ASSESSEE INTENDED TO SETTLE AFTER WITHDRAWING CASH FROM BANK. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THE LD. DR PRAYED FOR DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. 5. CONTROVERTING THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. DR, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE COPY OF PURCHASE DEED AND COPIES OF OBJECTIONS RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS PARTIES. THUS, ALL DETAILS OF VENDORS AND OBJECTORS WERE AVAILABLE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK NO STEPS TO SUMMON THE PARTIES AND 6 ITA NO . 424/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2010 - 11 VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF ASSESSEES EXPLANATIONS. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT APART FROM DISPUTES RAISED BY THIRD PARTIES, DIFFERENCES CROPPED UP BETWEEN THE VENDORS OF LAND AND THE BUYERS (INCLUDING ASSESSEE) . THE VENDORS FILED SUIT FOR DECLARATION IN COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISION, PUNE IN 2010. THE COPY OF PLAINT IS AT PAGES 76 TO 79 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE VENDORS HAD ALSO FILED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST THE BUYERS OF LAND ON 07 - 11 - 2010 IN POLICE STATION MAVAL. AFTER THE DISPUTE WITH THE VENDORS OF LAND CLAIM OF TWO OTHER PARTIES WAS SETTLED . A CORRECTION DEED - CUM - SUPPLEMENTARY SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 11 - 11 - 2011. THE SAME IS AT PAGES 80 TO 122 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT ALL THESE DOCUMENTS WERE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW. THE DOCUMENTS CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF MULTIPLE LITIGATION. 6 . W E HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW . THE ONLY ISSUE IN APPEAL IS WITH RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.59,30,000/ - U/S. 69A OF THE ACT. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY REVENUE AS THERE WERE CASH DEPOSITS TO THE TUNE OF RS.59,30,000/ - IN BANK ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2009 - 10. THE A SSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A PIECE OF LAND WHICH WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF LITIGATION. IN ORDER TO SETTLE THE CLAIM OF OBJECTORS THE ASSESSEE HAD TO MAINTAIN SUFFICIENT BALANCE OF CASH IN HAND. IN DECEMBER THE ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN CA SH FROM HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT TO SETTLE THE CLAIM OF THE OBJECTORS . S INCE, THE TALKS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE OBJECTORS DID NOT FRUCTIFY THE ASSESSEE DEPOSIT ED THE CASH WITHDRAWN INTO THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT ON DIFFERENT DATES AS THE DUE DATE OF CHEQU ES ISSUED BY ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF HIS REGULAR BUSINESS WERE APPROACHING. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW DID NOT BELIEVE THE 7 ITA NO . 424/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2010 - 11 EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY THE CASH DEPOSITS OVER THE PERIOD OF TIME STARTING FROM 11 - 11 - 2009 TO 25 - 03 - 2010. 7. A PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED ASSESSEES EXPLANATION ON THE PREMISES THAT THE ASSESSEE UTILIZED CASH WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK TO SETTLE THE CLAIM OF OBJECTORS AND DEPOSITED UNACCOUNTED CASH GENERATED OUT OF BO OKS IN THE BANK. WE DO NOT FIND MERIT IN THIS REASONING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REJECTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT RAISED ANY DOUBT OVER THE DISPUTE QUA THE LAND IN QUESTION. THE ASSESSEE WITH SUPPORT OF VARIOUS DOCUMENTS VIZ. OBJECTION LETTER S , COPY OF PLAINT S ETC. HAS SHOWN THAT THE TRANSFER OF LAND WAS UNDER DISPUTE. SEVERAL PERSONS HAVE CLAIMED THEIR INTEREST IN LAND IN MANNER OR THE OTHER. THERE IS NO DOCUMENT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT AFTER THE CASH WAS WITHDRAWN , THE ASSESSEE HAS SETTLED THE CLAIM OF ANY OF THE OBJECTORS OR HAVE UTILIZED THE CASH WITHDRAWN IN ANY OTHER MANNER FOR MAKING INVESTMENTS OR PAYMENT OF ANY LIABILITY OR ANY OTHER MANNER. IF AT ALL THE ASSESSEE SETTLE D THE CLAIM OF ANY PERSO N, HE WOULD HAVE CLAIM ED THE SAME IN HIS BOOKS. THE ASSESSEE MADE NO SUCH CLAIM IN THE BOOKS. IF THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT TO CLAIM THE AMOUNT PAID TO THE OBJECTORS , THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE UTILIZED UNACCOUNTED MONEY TO SETTLE THEIR CLAIM. TH ERE IS NO MERIT IN REASONING OF ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE USED HIS ACCOUNTED MONEY TO SETTLE THE CLAIM OF OBJECTORS OUTSIDE HIS BOOKS AND THEREAFTER INTRODUCED HIS UNACCOUNTED MONEY BY WAY OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK. THE FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER ARE PURELY BASED ON SURMISES. THEREFORE, THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REJECT ASSESSEES EXPLANATION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 8 ITA NO . 424/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2010 - 11 8. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DISBELIEVE D THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE PREMISE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN THE DETAILS OF PERSONS TO WHOM CASH PAYMENTS WERE MADE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED COPY OF SALE DEED , AS WELL AS , THE COMMUNICATION S RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS PERSONS RAISING OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE TRANSFER OF CHANDKHED LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE NO EFFORT TO SUMMON ANY OF THE PERSONS VIZ. OBJECTORS OR THE VENDORS OF THE LAND TO CROSS VERIFY THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THE CONTRARY PROXIMITY OF TRANSACTIONS I.E. WITHDRAWAL O F CASH FROM BANK ACCOUNT AND DEPOSIT OF CASH IN THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT SUPPORTS THE CAUSE OF ASSESSEE. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IN CASH BOOK HAS RECORDED THE TRANSACTIONS FOR EACH WITHDRAWAL OF CASH . IN NARRATION TO EXPLAIN THE ENTRY IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED BEING CASH WITHDRAWN FOR PAYMENT OF CHANDKHED LAND. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE RAISED NO DOUBT OVER THE ENTRIES RECORDED IN CASH BOOK. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HIS BURDEN BY FILING VARIOUS DOCUMENTS INDICATING THE EXISTENCE OF DISPUTE WIT H RESPECT TO LAND JOINTLY PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE AT CHANDKHED. THE REASON THAT THERE WAS TIME LAG IN WITHDRAWAL OF CASH FROM BANK AND DEPOSIT OF CASH OR THE CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN INSTALLMENTS WOULD NOT GIVE RISE TO PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INT RODUCED UNACCOUNTED CASH BY WAY OF BANK DEPOSITS. THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE TO BE GIVEN DUE CONSIDERATION. 9. THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF GURPREET SINGH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT REDEPOSIT OF EXCESS WITHDRAWALS MADE OUT OF EXPLAINED BANK DEPOSITS CANNOT BE HELD AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY. WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE EXPLANATION SUPPORTED BY CASH FLOW STATEMENT. IT BECOMES DUTY OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE FACTS. 9 ITA NO . 424/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2010 - 11 IN THE CASE OF MOONGIPA INVESTMENT LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (SUPRA) IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT, THE SMALL TIME GAP BETWEEN THE WITHDRAWALS AND CORRESPONDING CASH DEPOSITS CANNOT BE MADE A BASIS FOR ADDITION. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI ISHAQ HABIB BALWA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (SUPRA). 10. A CLOSE EXAMINATION OF THE CASH BOOK READ ALONG WITH BANK PASSBOOK AT PAGES 1 TO 8 OF THE PAPER BOOK REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN RS.50,00,000/ - ON VARIOUS DATES FOR MAK ING PAYMENT OF CHANDKHED LAND. THE CASH WITHDRAWN BY ASSESSEE FROM BANK FOR CHANDKHED LAND AS MENTIONED IN CASH BOOK IS TABULATED HERE - IN - BELOW : DATE CHEQUE NO. AMOUNT 04 - 12 - 2009 23277 RS.30,00,000/ - 05 - 12 - 2009 23278 RS.3,00,000/ - 05 - 12 - 2009 23279 RS.2,00,000/ - 09 - 12 - 2009 23282 RS.5,00,000/ - 14 - 12 - 2009 23283 RS.3,00,000/ - 17 - 12 - 2009 23284 RS.3,00,000/ - 18 - 12 - 2009 23286 RS.2,00,000/ - 19 - 12 - 2009 23287 RS.2,00,000/ - TOTAL RS.50,00,000/ - THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CASH DEPOSITS RS.59,30,000/ - AND CASH WITHDRAWAL RS.50,00,000/ - IS RS.9,30,000/ - . NO EXPLANATION HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.9,30,000/ - . THE SAID AMOUNT IS NOT REPRESENTED BY CASH WITHDRAWALS EITHER. 11. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE , WE ARE OF CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION OF THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS SUPPORTED BY CASH BOOK 10 ITA NO . 424/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2010 - 11 ENTRIES AND OTHER EVIDENCE, THAT HAVE NOT BEEN DOUBTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE REFO RE, NO ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF MATCHING CASH WITHDRAWALS I.E. RS.50,00,000/ - IS WARRANTED. THE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.9,30,000/ - IS SUSTAINED. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN TERMS, AFO RESAID . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 06 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017 . SD/ - SD/ - ( . /D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) ( / VIKAS AWASTHY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 06 TH NOVEMBER, 2017 RK / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 3, PUNE 4. / THE PR. CIT - 2, PUNE 5. , , , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. / / // TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / PRIVATE SECRETARY, , / ITAT, PUNE