PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 479/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4973 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA CIT DR DHK
• Keywords: Gift; Peak credit; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 69; 148

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 479/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA 44, SATYA NAGAR, KHATIPURA ROAD JHOTWARA, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD- 2(3) JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: ALHPS 4662 C VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY: SHRI P.C. PARWAL, CA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY :SHRI R.A. VERMA, ADDL CIT-. DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 21/10/2016 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 /10/2016 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BHAGCHAND, AM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-1, JAIPUR DATED 05-02-2016 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2006-07 RAISING THEREIN FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW I N CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 16,39,773/- MADE BY AO U/S 69 O F THE IT ACT, 1961 BY TREATING THE CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT AS UNE XPLAINED BY:- (A) NOT ALLOWING THE CREDIT OF WITHDRAWAL MADE IN CASH FROM THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT WHICH IS THE SOURCE OF DEPOSI T IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. ITA NO. 479/JP/2016 SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA VS. ITO, WARD- 2 (3), JA IPUR . 2 (B) HOLDING THAT THE CASH WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK WAS USED IN MAKING PAYMENT TO CUSTOMERS ON THE BASIS OF FACT S SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE BUT IGNORING THAT CASH DEPOSI TED IN BANK ACCOUNT IS ALSO RECEIVED FROM THE CUSTOMERS AS PER FACTS SUBMITTED BY IT. (C) NOT RESTRICTING THE ADDITION, IF ANY, TO THE EXTENT OF PEAK DEPOSIT OF RS.4,51,525/- BY DRAWING INCORRECT INFER ENCE OF THE DECISION OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CASE OF SIN D MEDICAL STORES VS. CIT 117 DTR 497. (D) NOT ACCEPTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AS TO THE SOURCE OF THE FUND AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE ONLY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES EVEN WHEN IN THE REMAND RE PORT AO HAS VERIFIED THE SOURCE AND HAS NOT GIVEN ANY AD VERSE FINDING ON THE SAME. 2.1 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE D ID NOT FILE HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS STATED THAT ON THE BASIS THE A IR INFORMATION IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH OF RS. 16,39,773/- IN HIS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT WITH INDUSIND BANK LTD DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE THEREFORE ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RESPOND TO THE NOTICE U/S 148. THE REFORE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 144/147 OF THE ACT DETERMINING TO TAL INCOME OF RS. 16,39,773/- ON 21-02-2014/-. 2.2 IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FILED AD DITIONAL EVIDENCES WHICH WERE ADMITTED AND A REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FROM THE AO. IN ITA NO. 479/JP/2016 SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA VS. ITO, WARD- 2 (3), JA IPUR . 3 REMAND PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE O F VARIOUS DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS MADE BY CHEQUE/CASH. IN SUPPORT OF DEPOSIT/WITHDRAWAL MADE BY CHEQUE, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPY OF HIS ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF KALPTARU INVESTMENTS PVT LTD AND VARIOUS CLIENTS . IN RESPECT OF DEPOSIT/WITHDRAWAL MADE BY CASH, IT WAS EXPLAINED T HAT THE SAME WAS FROM/TO THE CLIENTS AND OUT OF CASH GIFT OF RS. 10, 50,000/- RECEIVED FROM HIS MOTHER SMT. SHAKUNTALA DEVI AGAINST THE SALE AG REEMENT OF A PLOT ENTERED BY HER WITH SHRI SHIVCHARAN GUPTA. THE AO R ECORDED STATEMENT OF SHRI SHIVCHARAN GUPTA, WHERE HE ACCEPTED THAT HE HAD GIVEN CASH ADVANCE OF RS. 15,01,000/- TO SMT. SHAKUNTALA DEVI AGAINST SALE OF PLOT. IT WAS THUS EXPLAINED THAT THE ENTIRE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS EXPLAINED. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE PEAK CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS RS. 4,51,525/- ON 07 -03-2006 AND THEREFORE, IF THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NO T ACCEPTED THEN THE ADDITION SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO THE EXTENT OF THE PEAK CASH DEPOSIT. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) AT PARA 3.1.2 (V) & (VI) OF THE ORDER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE RECEIVED C ASH GIFT OF RS. 10,50,000/- FROM HIS MOTHER BY DOUBTING THE SAL E AGREEMENT THROUGH WHICH SHE RECEIVED RS. 15,01,000/- FROM SHRI SHIVCH ARAN GUPTA FOR THE REASONS STATED THEREIN. HE ALSO DID NOT ACCEPT THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF ITA NO. 479/JP/2016 SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA VS. ITO, WARD- 2 (3), JA IPUR . 4 THE ASSESSEE THAT ONLY THE PEAK AMOUNT CAN BE ADDED FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS STATED THAT THE CASH WITHD RAWN FROM BANK WAS USED TO MAKE PAYMENT TO HIS CUSTOMERS BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF SIND MEDICAL STORES VS. CIT (2015) 117 DTR 0497 (RAJ.). ACCORDINGLY, HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 16,39,773 /- BY TREA TING THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED. THE RELEVANT PARAS (V), (VI) (VIII) AND (X) OF THE OF THE LD. CIT(A)S FINDING ARE AS UNDER:- (V) IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THAT ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WERE MADE IN CASH AND NOT THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT AS PER TH E DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD SMT.SHAKUNTALA DEVI WAS HAVING BAN K ACCOUNT WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA, HOOGLI, WEST BENG ALL, STILL ALL THE ALLEGED TRANSACTIONS WERE MADE IN CAS H. IT IS SURPRISING TO NOTE THAT SHRI SHIVCHARAN GUPTA, A RE SIDENT OF PLOT NO. 64, NAND GAAV COLONY, LAXMI NAGAR, NIWARU ROAD, JHOTWARA, JAIPUR AND IN THE BUSINESS OF PROPE RTY DEALING, STILL IT APPEARS THAT HE HAD NOT MADE ANY ENQUIRIES ABOUT THE CLEAR TITLE OR THE PROPERTY EVEN FROM SHR I JITENDRA KUMAR SHARMA WHO WAS RESIDING AT 2JMC/18 SHILP COLO NY, JHOTWARA,JAIPUR. FURTHER, IT IS QUITE SURPRISING TH AT THOUGH THE COMPROMISE DEAL WAS SIGNED ON 20-11-2006, STILL THE BUYER HAS NOT GOT HIS MONEY BACK FROM SMT. SHAKUNTALA DEV I. SHRI SHIV CHARAN GUPTA APPEARS TO HAVE NOT TAKEN ANY LEG AL ACTION AGAINST SMT. SHAKUNTALA DEVI FOR CHEATING / FORGERY ETC. WHICH IS QUITE SURPRISING AND NOT USUAL ESPECI ALLY LOOKING TO THE FACT THAT SHRI SHIVCHARAN GUPTA CLAI MED TO HAVE TAKEN A SUM OF RS. 13 LAC ON INTEREST FROM FIN ANCIERS. (VI) IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT IN THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS STRICT RULE OF EVIDENCE DO NOT APPLY AN D SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE TEST OF HUMAN PRO BABILITY HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AS HELD BY THE HON'BL E APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL VS . CIT ITA NO. 479/JP/2016 SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA VS. ITO, WARD- 2 (3), JA IPUR . 5 (1995),214 ITR 801 (SC). IN THE INSTANT CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, A NUMBER OF LEYERS HAVE BEEN CREATED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCO UNT OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE THAT IF A PERSON WAS CHEATED ABOUT 11 YEARS AGO, HE WILL NOT TAKE ANY LE GAL ACTION AGAINST THE SAID PERSON ESPECIALLY WHEN AFTER MAKIN G A LARGE INVESTMENT IN THE YEAR 2005, HE WAS NEITHER GETTING THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND NOR REFUND OF THE MONEY PAID BY HIM FOR HIS NO FAULT. IT IS THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE CL AIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT IF RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 10.50 LACS FROM HIS MOTHER, WHO IN TURN RECEIVED THE MONEY AS ADVANCE F ROM SHRI SHIVCHARAN GUPTA, IS NOTHING BUT A STORY CONCO CTED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCO UNT OF THE APPELLANT, HENCE CANNOT BE BELIEVED. (VII). (VIII) IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT CASH WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK WAS USED TO MAKE PAYMENTS TO ITS CUSTOMERS AND THUS THE BENEFIT OF PEAK CREDIT THEORY CANNOT BE GI VEN TO THE APPELLANT. RELIACNE IS PLACED ON THE CASE OF SIND M EDICAL STORES VS. CIT (2015, 117 DTR 497 (RAJ.) WHEREIN TH E HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HELD THAT IN THE COURT IN CIT VS. ISHWARADAS MUTHA (2004) 270 ITR 597 (RAJ.) ALSO ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, THE P EAK CREDIT THEORY. WHEN ANY AMOUNT IS PAID, LATER WITHDRAWN FR OM THE BANK WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR RECYCLING AND ROTATION, UNLESS OTHERWISE ESTABLISHED AS INVESTED ELSEWHERE BY THE REVENUE. IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO THE B ENEFIT OF PEAK CREDIT WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED INSTEA D OF MAKING SEPARATE ADDITION OF ENTIRE AMOUNT. HOWEVER, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMES TO A F INDING THAT WITHDRAWN AMOUNT WAS USED OR SPENT BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY OTHER INVESTMENT OR EXPENDITURE THAN THE BENEFIT OF PEAK OF SUCH CREDIT, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, MAY NOT BE AVAI LABLE. (IX) ITA NO. 479/JP/2016 SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA VS. ITO, WARD- 2 (3), JA IPUR . 6 (X) THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS HELD THAT APPELLANT FAILED TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF CASH DEP OSIT OF RS. 16,39,773/- IN ITS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH INDUSIN D BANK AT THE APPELLATE STAGE ALSO AND THE BENEFIT OF PEAK CR EDIT THEORY CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO IT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUS SION. HENCE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 16,39,773/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT IS HEREBY SUSTAINED. 2.3 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 16,39,773/- CONFIRMED B Y THE LD. CIT(A). IT IS NOTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT THE LD . AR REPEATED THE SAME ARGUMENTS AS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. AR FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF SIND MEDICAL STORES VS. CIT , (2015), 117 DTR 497. 2.4 THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW AND ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF SIND MEDICAL STORES VS. CIT , (2015), 117 DTR 497. 2.5 I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOTED FROM THE RECORDS T HAT ASSESSEE WAS RESIDING IN KOLKATA UP TO FY 2005-06. HE WAS ENGAGE D IN THE BUSINESS OF SHARE TRADING ON HIS OWN ACCOUNT AND ALSO FOR THE V ARIOUS CUSTOMERS THROUGH KALPTARU INVESTMENT PVT LTD. THE MODUS OPER ANDI OF THE BUSINESS WAS THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE CLIENTS IN CH EQUE/CASH WAS ITA NO. 479/JP/2016 SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA VS. ITO, WARD- 2 (3), JA IPUR . 7 DEPOSITED BY HIM IN HIS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT MAINTA INED WITH INDUSIND BANK FROM WHERE CHEQUES WERE ISSUED TO KALPTARU INV ESTMENT PVT LTD AGAINST PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF SHARES. ON DISPOSAL OF THE SHARES, AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM KALPTARU INVESTMENT PVT LTD WAS DEPOS ITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT FROM WHERE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO THE CLIENT E ITHER BY CHEQUE OR IN CASH BY WITHDRAWING FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE A SSESSEE INCURRED LOSS IN SUCH DEALING AND THEREFORE HE STOPPED THIS BUSIN ESS AND SHIFTED TO JAIPUR IN THE OCTOBER, 2006. IT IS FURTHER NOTED FR OM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN WHICH THE AO STATED THAT ON THE BASIS THE AIR I NFORMATION, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH OF R S. 16,39,773/- IN HIS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT WITH INDUSIND BANK LTD DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE THEREFORE ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RESPOND TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 AND NOTICES ISSUED IN COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE AO MADE A DDITION OF RS. 16,39,773/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FO R THIS REASON THAT VARIOUS NOTICES AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER COULD NOT BE SERVE D ON THE ASSESSEE AND APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED IN TIME. CONSIDERING THIS ASPECT CIT(A) CONDONED THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND ALSO AD MITTED THE VARIOUS EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE HIM UNDER RULE 46A OF THE IN COME TAX RULES, 1962. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT LD. CIT(A) DID NOT A CCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE ITA NO. 479/JP/2016 SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA VS. ITO, WARD- 2 (3), JA IPUR . 8 ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD RECEIVED CASH GIFT OF RS. 10,5 0,000/- FROM HIS MOTHER. IT IS ALSO NOTED FROM THE RECORD THAT THE A O RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF SHRI SHIVCHARAN GUPTA IN WHICH HE ACC EPTED THAT HE HAD GIVEN CASH ADVANCE OF RS. 15,01,000/- TO SMT. SHAKU NTALA DEVI AGAINST SALE OF PLOT. IT IS ALSO NOTED FROM THE RECORDS THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF RECEIVING THE CASH DEPOSIT ON VARIOUS DATES FROM HIS MOTHER SMT. SHAKUNTALA DEVI SHARMA (ASSESSEE'S PAPER BOOK 43-48) BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS PER THE DETAILS MEN TIONED AT PAGE 8 OF THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER. HOWEVER, THE SAME IS AGAIN REPR ODUCED. SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT DATE AMOUNT REMARKS GIFT FROM MOTHER SMT. SHAKUNTALA DEVI SHARMA 14-07-2005 2,50,000/- GIFT FROM MOTHER SMT. SHAKUNTALA DEVI SHARMA 25-11-2005 3,00,000/- GIFT FROM MOTHER SMT. SHAKUNTALA DEVI SHARMA 08-02-2006 5,00,000/- TOTAL 10,50,000 DURING THE YEAR ASSESSEE'S MOTHER MADE A CASH GIFT OF RS. 10,50,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE FROM TIME TO TIME. THE IMMEDIATE SOURCE OF CASH WITH THE MOTHER IS ADVANCE RECEIVED ON SALE OF THE HOUSE AT SHILP COLONY, JHOTWARA. COPY OF THE AGREEMENT AND RELEVANT DOCUMENT THEREOF IS AT PB 33037 THUS THE SOURCE OF THIS AMOUNT IN THE HANDS OF THE MOTHER WAS EXPLAINED TO BE ADVANCE OF RS. 15,01,000/- RECEIVED FROM SHRI SHIVCHARAN GUPTA AGAINST AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 30-06-2005 OF HER H OUSE AT SHILP COLONY, JAIPUR FOR RS. 35.00 LACS. IT IS ALSO NOTED FROM TH E ASSESSEE'S PAPER BOOK PAGES 52-35 THAT BECAUSE OF THE SAY IN THE COURT TH E SALE DEED COULD NOT ITA NO. 479/JP/2016 SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA VS. ITO, WARD- 2 (3), JA IPUR . 9 BE EXECUTED AND THEREFORE, A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT D ATED 20-11-2016 WAS ENTERED INTO WHEREBY IT WAS AGREED THAT IF THE COUR T DECIDES THE CASE IN FAVOUR OF SMT. SHAKUNTALA DEVI, SHE WOULD GET THE S ALE DEED EXECUTED AFTER RECEIVING AMOUNT OTHERWISE SHE WOULD RETURN T HE ADVANCE AMOUNT AFTER RETAINING RS. 2.01 LACS. SUCH FACT IS ALSO NA RRATED AT PAGE 4 OF THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER, IN REMAND REPORT OF THE AO, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- DURING THE REMAND REPORT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSE E HIMSELF ATTENDED AND PRODUCED THE RELATED DOCUMENT OF THE CASE. THE STATEMENT OF SHRI SHIV CHARAN GUPTA S/O LATE SH RI PRABU NARAYAN GUPTA WHO PURCHASES THE PLOT OF JMC/118/, S HILP COLONY, JHOTWARA, JAIPUR FROM SMT. SHAKUNTALA DEVI MOTHER O F THE ASSESSEE. SHRI SHIV CHARAN GUPTA ADMITTED TO GIVE RS. 15,01,000/- IN CASH TO SMT. SHAKUNTALA DEVI AS SALES CONSIDERAT ION OF SAID PLOT. DOCUMENTS DURING THE PROCEEDINGS ARE ENCLOSED HEREW ITH. IT IS NOTED FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE AO IN THE REMAN D REPORT HAS NOT COMMENTED ANY ADVERSE VIEW. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) AT PARA 3.1.2 (V) & (VI) HAD CONSIDERED ALL THESE FACTS AS CONCOCTED STORY WHICH DOES NOT APPEAR AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DI SCUSSIONS. HENCE, IT IS OBSERVED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ALL THE E VIDENCES AS TO THE SOURCE OF GIFTS RECEIVED BY HIM THEN THE SAME CANNO T BE BRUSHED ASIDE ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. THUS IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DELIBERATIONS, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE CASH DEPOSIT/ PEAK DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS OTHERWISE FULLY EXPLAINED. THUS THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 479/JP/2016 SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA VS. ITO, WARD- 2 (3), JA IPUR . 10 3.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 /10/2 016 SD/- HKKXPUN ( BHAGCHAND) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 26 /10/ 2016 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD- 2 (3), JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ CIT(A). 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 479/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR