ITO, BUNDI V. RAMESHWAR MEENA, BUNDI

ITA 470/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1934 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Depreciation; Income from undisclosed sources; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 144

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 FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 470/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUNDI. CUKE VS. SHRI RAMESHWAR MEENA, PROP. M/S RAJSHREE GOODS TRANSPORT, BY PASS ROAD, BUNDI LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ABUPM2238F VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SHRAWAN KUMAR GUPTA (ADV.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI ROSHANTA MEENA (J.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 12/10/2017 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08/11/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF DATED 10.03.2015 OF CIT (A), KOTA FOR A.Y. 2011-12. THE R EVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A), KOTA HAS REED IN :- (I) DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 23,98,756/- OU T OF TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 34,00,2016 MADE BY AO WITHOUT G IVING ANY BASIS OR CITING ANY CASE LAW IN SUPPORT OF HIS DECI SION TO APPLY NET PROFIT RATE OF 5% ON TRANSPORT RECEIPTS OF THE ASSE SSEE. (II) DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 8,91,071/- OU T OF TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 16,97,753/- MADE BY THE AO WITH OUT GIVING ITA NO. 470/JP/2015 ITO VS. SH. RAMESHWAR MEENA 2 ANY BASIS OR CITING ANY CASE LAW IN SUPPORT OF HIS DECISION TO APPLY NET PROFIT RATE OF 4% ON LIQUOR RECEIPT OF T HE ASSESSEE. (III) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,09,01,000/- MAD E BY THE AO U.S 68 OF THE IT ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEP OSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT SINCE NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE HAS BEE N PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER BORE AO OR EVEN BEFORE LD. C IT(A) TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS EXPLANATION REGARDING NATURE AND S OURCES OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 1,09,01,000/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT; (IV) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.14,00,000/- MADE B Y THE AO U.S 68 OF THE IT ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEP OSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT SINCE NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE HAS BEE N PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER BEFORE AO OR EVEN BEFORE LD. CIT(A) TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS EXPLANATION REGARDING NATURE AND S OURCES OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 14,00,000/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT; (V) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,10,580/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED LOANS GIVEN TO VARIOUS PERSO NS SINCE THE ASSESSEE NEVER RAISED THE CONTENTION BEFORE AO OR E VEN LD. CIT(A) THAT HE HAD GIVEN LOANS OF RS. 2,10,580/- OU T OF HIS UNACCOUNTED INCOME MENTIONED IN THE ORDER OF AO OR LD. CIT(A); 2. GROUND NO. (I) REGARDING RESTRICTING THE DISALLO WANCE OF EXPENSES MADE BY THE AO IN THE TRANSPORT BUSINESS OF THE ASS ESSEE BY APPLYING NET PROFIT OF 5%. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BU SINESS OF TRANSPORTATION IN THE NAME OF M/S RAJ SHREE GOODS T RANSPORT CORPORATION AS WELL AS HAVING LIQUOR BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 26,4 6,892/- AND AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 50,42,500/-. THE AO OBSER VED THAT THE ASSESSEEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS, BILLS, VOUCHERS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE BUS INESS OF M/S RAJ ITA NO. 470/JP/2015 ITO VS. SH. RAMESHWAR MEENA 3 SHREE GOODS TRANSPORT CORPORATION. THE AO FURTHER N OTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES OF RS. 2,9 3,97,730/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS THEREFORE, THE AO WAS OF THE V IEW THAT THE ABOVE EXPENSES WERE NOT INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY F OR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO DISALLOWED 10% OF TRA NSPORTATION EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 29,39,773/-. APART FROM THIS AO HAS ALSO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF CONV EYANCE, PETROL, TELEPHONE AND MOBILE EXPENSES OF RS. 55,787/- & RS . 48,507/- RESPECTIVELY AS WELL AS DEPRECIATION OF RS. 3,11,18 2/- AND VEHICLE LOAN INTEREST OF RS. 32,413/-. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ELEMENT OF PERSONAL USE CANNOT BE RULED OUT, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SA ID THAT THE ABOVE EXPENSES HAS BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY F OR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED 20% OF THE EXPE NSES AMOUNT TO RS. 1,44,975/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER DISAL LOWED THE SALARY CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID TO DRIVER OF RS. 1,08,00 0/- AND OTHERS RS. 1,72,000/- AS WELL AS STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES OF RS . 35,468/- TOTAL AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,15,468/- IN TOTO. ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THIS C LAIM. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED A TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 34,00,216/- IN ITA NO. 470/JP/2015 ITO VS. SH. RAMESHWAR MEENA 4 CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE AO BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND CONTENDED THAT DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO HAS RESU LTED A NET PROFIT OF RS. 39,57,985/- IN THE TRANSPORT BUSINESS WHICH IS EQUAL 12.70% NET PROFIT RATE WHICH IS IMPERMISSIBLE IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS AND FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT INV OKING PROVISIONS OF U/S 145(3). THE LD. CIT(A) ESTIMATED INCOME FROM T HE TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS AT 5% AND ACCORDINGLY RESTRICTED THE DISA LLOWANCE/ ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS. 10,01,460 AS AGAINST RS. 34,0 0,216/- MADE BY THE AO. THUS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITI ON/ DISALLOWANCE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 23,98,756/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE OF THIS APPEAL. 3. BEFORE US, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT WHEN TH E ASSESSEEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR ANY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS THEN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS CLEARLY STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS WELL AS BILLS, VOUCHER S IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPENDITURE. HENCE, DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO AT 10% OF THE TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES, 20% OF CONVEYANCE PETROL, TELEPHONE, MOBILE DEPRECIATION AND VEHICLE LOAN EXPENSES DUE TO THE PERSONAL USE OF THE ITA NO. 470/JP/2015 ITO VS. SH. RAMESHWAR MEENA 5 TELEPHONE AND MOBILE AS WELL AS VEHICLES IS JUSTIF IED. FURTHER, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE THEN THE CLA IM OF SALARY TO DRIVER AND OTHER STAFF INCLUDING STAFF WELFARE EXPE NSES CANNOT BE ALLOWED AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DI SALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN FULL. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. DR HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ESTIMATED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND THEREF ORE THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT CITING ANY INSTAN CE OR PREVAILING NET PROFIT IN THIS BUSINESS IS BASED ON ASSUMPTION AND NOT ON THE FACTS. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE H AS SUBMITTED THAT THE ESTIMATION OF THE INCOME @ OF 5% AS AGAINST THE AVERAGE NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAST YEAR AT 1.5% IS MORE TH AN THE REASONABLE ACCEPTED INCOME AND THEREFORE, THE INCOME ESTIMATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE. THE LD. AR HAS REFERRED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS ON THE POINT AND SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THE TRIBUNAL HAS ACCEPTED THE INCOME @ OF 6.5% GP AND THEREFORE, THE NET INCOME E STIMATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT 5% IS MUCH HIGHER THAN THE GP RATE AT 6.5% ACCEPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECI SIONS AS UNDER:- R.B. BANSILAL ABIRCHAND SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS 75 ITR 260. CIT VS. MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD. 162 ITR 56 5 ITA NO. 470/JP/2015 ITO VS. SH. RAMESHWAR MEENA 6 DCIT V MEWAR TEXTILE MILLS LTD. 21 TAX WORLD 821 MOHD. UMER V. CIT 101 ITR 525 AJANTA CONSTRUCTION (P.) LTD. VS. ACIT XXII TW 606 DCIT VS. ASSOCIATED STONE INDUSTRIES XXII TW 155 GHEWARCHAND VS. ITO XXI TW 571 SIDDHESHWARI COTTON MILLS P. LTD. V. CIT 117 ITR 95 3 PADAMPATH RAMGOPAL 76 ITR 719 MALT BRU LTD. 34 TW 246 MANOHAR LAL V. ITO 68 TTJ 27 SHRI GAUTAM TEXTILE V. ITO 72TTJ 169 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISPUTED T HE FACT THAT IT FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AS WELL AS ON BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES A S WELL AS OTHER EXPENSES IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONVEYANCE, PETROL, TELEPHONE, MOBILE, DEPRECIATION ETC. THE DISPUTE IS ONLY REGARDING THE QUANTUM OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO WHICH HAS BEEN RESTRICT ED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BY ESTIMATING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT 5% IN THE TRANSPORT BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE NET P ROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER YEARS 2008-09 TO 2010-1 1 WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE AO IS 1.5% HOWEVER, WE NOT THAT ALL THE EARLIER ITA NO. 470/JP/2015 ITO VS. SH. RAMESHWAR MEENA 7 ASSESSMENT YEARS THE RETURN OF INCOME WERE PROCESSE D U/S 143(1). THERE IS NO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, THEREFORE, THE INC OME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS CANNOT BE TAKEN AS ACCEPTED NET PROFIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT M ADE BY THE AO IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED VARIOUS EXPENSES AND SOME OF THE EXPENSES WERE DISALLOWED T O THE EXTENT OF 10% OF TOTAL EXPENSES AND OTHERS WERE DISALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF 20% WHEREAS SOME OTHER EXPENSES CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF S ALARY TO THE DRIVER AND OTHER STAFF HAS BEEN DISALLOWED IN TOTO. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCED THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AS WELL AS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HOWEVER, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO T INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) THEN THE DECISION RELI ED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT APPLIED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE . THE AO WAS FRAMED THE ORDER U/S 144 HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER DID NOT RESORT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3). THEREFORE, THE RE IS NO ILLEGALITY IN THE ACTION OF THE AO IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF EX PENDITURE UNDER EACH HEAD. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE PREVIOUS HIS TORY OF DECLARED TOTAL INCOME ESTIMATED THE INCOME @ 5%. WE FIND THAT THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME MAY BE ADOPTED IN THE CASE WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND TO BRING THE C ONTROVERSY TO AN ITA NO. 470/JP/2015 ITO VS. SH. RAMESHWAR MEENA 8 END. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE WAS ASSESSED TO TAX AS A RESULT OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO I S EQUAL TO 12.70% OF THE TURNOVER WHICH IS ON THE HIGHER SIDE IN TRA NSPORT BUSINESS AND THEREFORE A REASONABLE AND PROPER ESTIMATE WAS REQ UIRED TO BE MADE IN THIS CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ESTIM ATED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT 5% THEREBY RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWA NCE OF RS. 10,01,460/- AS AGAINST THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO OF RS. 34,00,216. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY SUPPOR TING EVIDENCE AS WELL AS PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE PROPER AND JUST ESTIMATION OF THE INCOME. THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS ACCORDINGLY MODIFIED. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6. GROUND NO. (II) IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE EXPEND ITURE IN THE LIQUOR EXPENSES. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AS WELL AS AR AN D CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 16,97,753/- DUE TO THE REASON T HAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AS WELL A S BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE LD. CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE BY EST IMATING THE NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE AT 4% IN THE LIQUOR BUSINESS. THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL AS ITA NO. 470/JP/2015 ITO VS. SH. RAMESHWAR MEENA 9 RAISED IN THE GROUND NO. (I), THEREFORE, HAVING REG ARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND OUR FINDING IN RESPEC T OF THE GROUND NO. (I). WE THINK IT PROPER AND REASONABLE TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME IN THE LIQUOR BUSINESS @ 5%. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) IS ACCORDINGLY MODIFIED. THIS GROUND IS REVENUE IS PAR TY ALLOWED. 7. GROUND NO. (III) IS REGARDING CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 1,09,01,901/- ADDED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 68 WHICH WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). DURING THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTED FROM THE AIR INFORMATION OF THE ASSESSEEE THAT IT HAS DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS. 97 LACS IN THE IDBI BANK AND FURTHER RS. 12.01 LACS TOTAL AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,09,01,000/-. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CA USE AS TO WHY THIS DEPOSIT SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH AN Y REPLY. FURTHER EXCEPT THE SUBMISSIONS THAT CASH ARE FROM RECEIPT O F WINE, TRANSPORT BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE INCOME, NO SUPPORTIVE EVID ENCE OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED. ACCORDINGLY THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,09,01,000/-. THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE EXPLANAT ION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT A SUM OF RS. 34 LACS DEPOSITED IN CASH WAS SHO WN WITH A DESCRIPTION SALE PROCEEDS OF FOOD SOYABEEN. FURTHER , THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOTED THAT THE ESTIMATED CASH TURNOVER OF THE ASSES SEE WAS AROUND TO ITA NO. 470/JP/2015 ITO VS. SH. RAMESHWAR MEENA 10 RS. 8.22 CRORES AND THEREFORE, IT CAN BE REASONABLY PRESUMED THAT THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 63 LACS WERE DEPOSITED OUT OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCED SALE, CASH RECEIPTS FROM WINE AND TRANSPOR T BUSINESS. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO DEL ETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 97 LACS. AS REGARDS THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 12.01 LACS THE LD. CIT(A) GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF A TELESCOPIC AS IT HAD SUSTAINED T HE ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF RS. 18,08,142/-. 8. GROUND NO. (IV) REGARDING DISALLOWANCE MADE BY T HE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK OF RS. 1,4,00,000/- WHICH WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO FOUND FROM THE CBDT INFORMATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT A CASH OF RS. 14 L ACS HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE YEAR. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF THESE DEPOSITS A ND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION OR EVIDENCE WHY THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCES OF THE DEPOSIT AS THE RECEIPT FROM WINE AND TRANSPORT BUSI NESS AS WELL AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPL ANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 14,00,000/-. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ITA NO. 470/JP/2015 ITO VS. SH. RAMESHWAR MEENA 11 DELETED THIS ADDITION BY GRANTING TELESCOPIC BENEFI T AS THE OTHER ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) WOULD BE TREATED AS THE SO URCE OF DEPOSIT. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AS WELL AS AR AND CONS IDERING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON VARIOUS HEADS AND PART OF WHICH WAS SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) AMOUNTING TO MANY TIMES MOR E THAN THIS DEPOSIT MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT THEN THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPIC TO THE EXTENT OF THE OTHER ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THAT APPEAL. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILL EGALITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) QUA THIS ISSUE. 10. GROUND NO. (V) IS REGARDING THE ADDITION MADE B Y THE AO OF RS. 2,10,580/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED LOAN ACCOUNT T O VARIOUS PERSONS WHICH WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BY GIVING THE B ENEFIT OF TELESCOPIC. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AS WELL AS AR AND CONS IDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ADDIT ION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS MORE THAN THE AMOUNT OF RS. 14,00,00 0/- AS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK AS WELL AS THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 2,10,580/-. ONCE THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS MORE THAN THE CUMULA TIVE AMOUNTS OF BANK DEPOSITED OF RS. 14 LACS AND LOAN ADVANCE OF R S. 2,10,580/- THEN, ITA NO. 470/JP/2015 ITO VS. SH. RAMESHWAR MEENA 12 WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) APPLYING THE TELESCOPIC EVIDENCE. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AS WELL AS AR AND CONS IDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS TO SUBSTANTI ATE THE CLAIM THAT DEPOSIT WAS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FROM AGR ICULTURE PRODUCE AS WELL AS RECEIPTS FROM THE WINE AND TRANSPORT BUS INESS. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 13. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DE CLARED AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 50,42,500/- FROM THE AGRICULTURAL LAN D TAKEN ON LEASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE SAID CLAIM O F AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THUS ONCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTE D THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF MORE THAN RS. 50 LACS THEN ACCEPTING THE CLAIM BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE TUNE OF RS. 34 LACS IN BANK DEPOSIT WHICH IS SPECIFICALLY SHOWN AS SALE PROCEED OF FOOD SOYABIN CANNOT BE FO UND FAULT WITH. HENCE, TO THE EXTENT OF SOURCES OF DEPOSIT OF RS. 3 4 LACS WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A). AS REGARDS THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 63 LACS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DE LETED THE SAID ADDITION BY CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE TURNOVER OF ASSESSEE FROM THE ITA NO. 470/JP/2015 ITO VS. SH. RAMESHWAR MEENA 13 TRANSPORT AND LIQUOR BUSINESS IS RS. 8.22 CRORES, T HEREFORE, THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 63 LACS CAN BE SOURCED FROM THE REC EIPT OF WINE AND TRANSPORT BUSINESS. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE CLOS ING BALANCE IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY RS. 3,13,001/- AND THEREFORE THE DEPOSIT WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGHOUT THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION. SINCE THIS DEPOSIT WAS NOT IN LUMP SUM BUT SPREAD OVER DURING THE YEAR THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASO N TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BY ACCEPTING THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSIT AS RECEIPT FROM THE WINE AND TRANSPORT BUSINESS. AS RE GARDS THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPIC OF RS. 12,01,000/- WHEN THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) EXCEEDS THE CUMULATIVE AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK AND ADVANCE GIVEN TO THE PARTY THEN WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN GRANTING THE SAID BENEFIT OF TELESCOPIC. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08/11/2017 SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO FOT; IKY JKO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 08/11/2017. * SANTOSH. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: ITA NO. 470/JP/2015 ITO VS. SH. RAMESHWAR MEENA 14 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- ITO, BUNDI. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- SHRI RAMESHWAR MEENA, PROP. M/S RAJSHREE GOODS TRANSPORT, BY PASS ROAD, BUNDI 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 470/JP/2015} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR