Prasanna Kumar Nanda, Bhubaneswar V. ITO, Ward-3(4), Bhubaneswar

ITA 51/CTK/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9878 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 29-06-2021
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Gift; Income from undisclosed sources; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 69C; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE PRASANNA K UMAR NANDA, NO.EB- 78, BRIT SAGAR STAGE- 1, BHUBANESWAR. PAN/GIR NO. (APPELLANT REVENUE BY THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE CIT(A)-2 , BHUBANESWAR 14. 2. GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL IN ADJUDICATION. 3. GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.15,29,389/ ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED MONEY DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK SMC BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL ITA NO.51/CTK/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 UMAR NANDA, PROP. 78, BRIT COLONY, LAXMI 1, BHUBANESWAR. VS. ITO, WARD - BHUBANESWAR. NO. AELPN 5336 B (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.R.MOHANTY, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI SOVESH CHANDRA MOHANTY DATE OF HEARING : 29/06 / 20 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23/ 0 O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE , BHUBANESWAR DATED 22.10.2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE, HENCE, REQUIRES NO SEPARATE GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.15,29,389/ ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED MONEY DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT. P A G E 1 | 15 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH, CUTTACK JUDICIAL MEMBER - 3(4), BHUBANESWAR. RESPONDENT ) SHRI P.R.MOHANTY, AR MOHANTY , ADDL. CIT (DR) / 20 21 0 7/2021 THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013- NATURE, HENCE, REQUIRES NO SEPARATE GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.15,29,389/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED MONEY DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT. ITA NO.51/CTK/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 P A G E 2 | 15 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.12,65,000/- IN AXIS BANK JOINTLY HELD WITH THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE AND RS.2,64,389/- IN STATE BANK OF INDIA IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSE, TOTALING TO RS.15,29,389/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN BOTH THE BANKS. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT THERE WERE SUFFICIENT CASH WITHDRAWALS OF RS.17,45,610/- FROM BOTH THE BANKS AND OUT OF THESE, CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.16,52,725/- WERE MADE. FURTHER, ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT HE IS AN EMPLOYEE IN A AUTOMOBILE SECTOR AND CUSTOMERS DEPOSITED CASH IN HIS ACCOUNT AND THE SAME WERE PAID TO THE EMPLOYER. LATER ON, HE CHANGED HIS VIEW THAT SUBMITTED THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS WERE MADE IN AXIS BANK OUT OF SALES OF DRESS MATERIALS OF HIS WIFES BUSINESS IN THE NAME OF GITANJALI DRESS HOUSE. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICES U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE PERSONS FROM WHICH PURCHASES WERE MADE AND TWO PARTIES STATED THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE DONE ANY BUSINESS WITH GITANJALI DRESS HOUSE. AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION REGARDING THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANKS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.15,29,389/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN TWO BANKS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. ON APPEAL, BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A STATEMENT OF CASH DEPOSITED AND CASH WITHDRAWN FROM THREE BANK ACCOUNTS ITA NO.51/CTK/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 P A G E 3 | 15 ALONGWITH CONSOLIDATED CASH ABSTRACTS AND CLAIMED THAT ALL THE CASH DEPOSITS CAN BE EXPLAINED FROM CASH WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS. LD CIT(A) FORWARDED THESE DOCUMENTS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A REMAND REPORT. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAIL FROM WHICH IS IT CAN BE PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED CASH AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE REGARDING RECYCLING OF CASH. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE AND ALSO ON THE BASIS OF REMAND REPORT OF THE AO, LD CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CHANGING HIS STATEMENT TIME AND AGAIN AND THERE IS NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK AND SUBSEQUENT WITHDRAWALS. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT A PRUDENT BUSINESS MAN CANNOT WITHDRAW THE MONEY FROM HIS ONE BANK ACCOUNT TO DEPOSIT IN HIS OTHER ACCOUNT. THE LD CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO FALSE AND, ACCORDINGLY, HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND FURTHER REFERRED TO PAGE 24 OF APB, WHICH CONTAINS A PAY SLIP OF CONSORTIUM AUTOMOBILE PVT LTD., FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER, 2016 TO CONTEND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS THE EMPLOYEE OF CONSORTIUM AUTOMOBILE PVT LTD., AS TATA OK EXCHANGE MANAGER. HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS WORKING AS EXCHANGE MANAGER, THEREFORE, THE CUSTOMERS USED TO DEPOSIT THE CASH TO HIS BANK ACCOUNT TO PURCHASE THE VEHICLE AND THEREAFTER, THE SAME AMOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN AND ITA NO.51/CTK/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 P A G E 4 | 15 PAID TO EMPLOYER. THE ASSESSEE ALTERNATIVELY GETS THE COMMISSION FROM HIS EMPLOYER. 7. REPLYING TO ABOVE, LD DR REFERRED TO REMAND REPORT FURNISHED BY THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT ON PERUSAL OF OPENING BALANCE AND CLOSING BALANCE OF THREE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE MINIMAL IN COMPARISON TO THE HUGE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN AND DEPOSITS. MOST OF THE DEPOSITS ARE MADE IN CASH AND NO SUCH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE CASH DEPOSITS WERE MADE BY THE PURCHASER OF THE VEHICLES. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN ONE SIDE THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING THE DEPOSITS MADE IN CASH FROM THE PURCHASER OF THE VEHICLE AND LATER ON CHANGED HIS VERSION THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS WERE MADE OUT OF THE SALES PROCEEDS FROM HIS WIFE BUSINESS. HENCE, THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE CONTRADICTORY AND, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE UPHELD. LD D.R. ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE A.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MIR BASHEERUDDIN ALI KHAN VS ITO (2014) 42 TAXMANN.COM 69 (HYDERABAD), WHEREIN, HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, WHICH SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. 8. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD OF THE CASE. IN THIS CASE, INITIALLY, THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE CASH DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNTS ARE FROM THE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS OF VEHICLES/AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS FROM WHERE, HE IS WORKING AS EXCHANGE ITA NO.51/CTK/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 P A G E 5 | 15 MANAGER. LATER ON THE CASH WAS WITHDRAWN AND HANDED OVER TO THE EMPLOYER I.,E.AUTOMOBILE COMPANY. WHEN THE AO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISHED THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE REGARDING CASH DEPOSIT AND WITHDRAWN, THE ASSESSEE IMMEDIATELY CHANGED HIS VERSION AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS ARE OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS FROM HIS WIFE BUSINESS. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT SCRUTINY OF BANK STATEMENT REVEALS IT TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE FACT OF THE SAME BEING, APART FROM WITHDRAWN IN CASH AND BY CHEQUES FOR OSTENSIBLY PERSONAL PURCHASES, ON A REGULAR BASIS AND IN NO INSIGNIFICANT SUMS. FURTHER, THE PATTERN OF WITHDRAWAL REVEALS THE ACCOUNT TO BE EMPLOYED FOR TRANSFER OF FUNDS IN THE MAIN. I.E. DEPOSIT OF CASH AT ONE PLACE AND ITS WITHDRAWAL AT OTHER, THE FUNDS BEING WITHDRAWAL ALMOST IN TOTO AND SOON AFTER THEIR DEPOSIT. EVEN OTHERWISE, IF IT WILL BE ASSUMED THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS ARE FROM THE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS OF AUTOMOBILE/AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, THEN IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE CONFIRMATION FROM THE DEPOSITORS THAT THEY HAVE DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF VEHICLES/IMPLEMENTS. NO SUCH CONFIRMATION WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, FROM THE DEPOSITOR OF CASH IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT, IT CANNOT BE DENIED OUT RIGHTLY THAT THERE ARE CASH DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS OF SIMILAR AMOUNTS. FROM THE ABOVE, IT CAN BE INFERRED THAT SUCH DEPOSITS FROM THE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS WERE MADE AND SUBSEQUENT WITHDRAWALS WERE MADE BY ITA NO.51/CTK/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 P A G E 6 | 15 THE ASSESSEE. WHETHER SUCH CASH IN TURN WERE GIVEN TO THE EMPLOYER OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE VEHICLE TRANSACTIONS ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NO OTHER INCOME EXCEPT THE SALARY FROM THE AUTOMOBILE COMPANY. IF I CONSIDER THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REPORTED IN THE REMAND REPORT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE ARE DEPOSITS IN ONE PLACE AND WITHDRAWALS OF SIMILAR AMOUNTS IN ANOTHER PLACE PROVES THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN USED FOR BUSINESS TRANSACTION OF THE EMPLOYER OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSEE GETS COMMISSION AS IT IS REVEALED FROM PAGE 26 OF APB SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. AS REGARDS TO THE DECISION RELIED BY LD D.R., I FIND THAT IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.6,50,000/- ON 8-9-2004 AND THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE AFORESAID DEPOSITS WERE OUT OF THE CASH AVAILABLE WITH HIM FROM WITHDRAWALS MADE BY HIM EARLIER FROM THE SBI FROM FEBRUARY 2002 TO SEPTEMBER, 2003. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING A BANK ACCOUNT, IT IS BEYOND HUMAN PROBABILITY AND TOTALLY INCOMPREHENSIBLE THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD KEEP QUITE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF RS.6,50,000/- IN CASH WITH HIM FOR A PERIOD OF OVER ONE YEAR WITHOUT DEPOSITING INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT SHOWN ANY VALID REASON AS TO WHY HE KEPT SO MUCH CASH WITH HIM FOR OVER A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR WHEN HE WAS HOLDING A BANK ACCOUNT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COGENT REASON BACKED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY A MAKE BELIEVE STORY AND HENCE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. ON ITA NO.51/CTK/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 P A G E 7 | 15 APPEAL, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE TRIBUNAL BY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS U/S.69 OF THE ACT. THIS DECISION IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. 10. HERE IN THIS CASE, THE MATERIAL FACTS STRONGLY INDICATE A PROBABILITY THAT THE BUYERS OF VEHICLES/AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS HAD DEPOSITED THE CASH IN VARIOUS PLACES IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT WAS THE LIABILITY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO WITHDRAW THE SAME AND ALTERNATIVELY PAID THE SAME TO HIS EMPLOYER. IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS, ONE MAY FALL INTO REALM OF PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY WHERE THERE ARE MANY PROBABLE FACTORS, SOME MAY GO IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND SOME MAY GO AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BUT THE PROBABLE FACTORS HAVE TO BE WEIGHED ON MATERIAL FACTS SO COLLECTED IN THE FORM OF BANK STATEMENTS. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ESPECIALLY THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SALARIED EMPLOYEE HAVING A MEAGER INCOME AND THE TRANSACTION MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS, I OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS USED HIS BANK ACCOUNT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS OF VEHICLES/IMPLEMENTS, HIS EMPLOYER ONLY TO EARN SOME COMMISSION INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, I DELETE THE ADDITION AND ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 11. GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.9,25,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S.69 OF THE ACT. 12. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED THREE ITA NO.51/CTK/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 P A G E 8 | 15 TIME DEPOSITS OF RS.2,25,000/- ON 30.4.2012, RS.7,00,000/- ON 13.8.2012 AND RS.3,00,000/- ON 6.12.2015. BEFORE THE AO, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT TIME DEPOSIT OF RS.2,25,000/- HAS BEEN MADE OUT OF GIFT RECEIVED FROM HIS FATHER. WITH REGARD TO TIME DEPOSIT OF RS.7,00,000/-, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT RS.2,42,400/- AND RS.4,48,746/- WERE RECEIVED ON MATURITY OF EARLIER DEPOSITS AND SAME WERE REINVESTED ALONGWITH BALANCE AMOUNT FROM HIS SAVINGS TOTALING TO RS.7,00,000/-. HENCE, THE AO DISALLOWED RS.9,25,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S.69 OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH NECESSARY EVIDENCE, WHICH WAS UPHELD IN FIRST APPEAL. 13. LD COUNSEL DRAWING MY ATTENTION TOWARDS ASSESSMENT ORDER PAGE 3 PARA 2 SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PICKED UP THREE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING ADDITION U/S.69 OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE IN ITEM NO.3 MADE JOINTLY HAS BEEN MADE ON 6.12.2015, WHICH PERTAINS TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2015-16 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17, THEREFORE, NOT RELEVANT FOR THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AND THE AO HAS NOT MADE ANY ADDITION IN THIS REGARD BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN THE BANK TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3,00,000/- AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.9,25,000/- WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING ADDITION U/S.69 OF THE ACT. LD COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE TIME DEPOSIT/FDR OF RS.7,00,000/- WITH AXIS BANK BY USING AMOUNT OF RS.2,19,152/- RECEIVED ON CLOSURE OF EARLIER TIME DEPOSIT OF ITA NO.51/CTK/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 P A G E 9 | 15 RS.2,50,000/- WITHDRAWN FROM S.B. ACCOUNT OF STATE BANK OF INDIA OF THE ASSESSEE AND DEPOSITED ON THE SAME DATE TO THE AXIS BANK ACCOUNT. LD COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON 6.7.2012, THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED RS.1,33,000/- TO THE AXIS BANK, WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS MOTHER ON REUNION OF FAMILY AND CELEBRATING THE ARRIVAL OF HIS WIFE ALONGWITH CHILD TO THE FAMILY. LD COUNSEL VEHEMENTLY POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO SUBMITTED THAT THE CONFIRMATION/DECLARATION OF THE ASSESSEES MOTHER SASHIKALA NANDA AVAILABLE AT PAGE 17 OF APB. LD COUNSEL FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT FROM PAGE 30 OF APB, WHICH IS A COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH AXIS BANK, CLEARLY REVEALS THAT THESE THREE AMOUNTS VIZ; RS.2,19,152/-, RS.2,50,000/- AND RS.1,33,000/- CREATED A CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.7,29,627/- OUT OF WHICH, THE ASSESSEE MADE DEPOSIT OF RS.7 LAKHS IN TIME DEPOSIT/FDR. LD COUNSEL FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE INVESTMENT AT SL. NO.1 OF RS.2,25,000/- HAS BEEN MADE ON 30.4.2012 OUT OF AMOUNT GIVEN BY THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE AS GIFT, WHICH IS CLEARLY DISCERNIBLE FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH SBI AVAILABLE AT PAGE 33 OF APB, WHEREIN, RS.2,10,000/- HAS BEEN DEPOSITED ON 4.3.2012 CREATING A CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.2,35,379/- OUT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.2,25,000/- IN THE TIME DEPOSIT/FDR WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA. THEREFORE, NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR U/S.69 OF THE ACT. LD COUNSEL PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON BOTH THE COUNTS AND CONFIRMED BY LD CIT(A) MAY KINDLY BE ORDERED TO BE DELETED KEEPING IN VIEW THE ITA NO.51/CTK/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 P A G E 10 | 15 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH CONFIRMATION AND AFFIDAVIT. 14. REPLYING TO ABOVE, LD DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MAY KINDLY BE CONFIRMED. LD D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES AFFIDAVIT IS SELF SERVING DOCUMENT WHICH DO NOT SERVE ANY PURPOSE AND WAS NOT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 15. PLACING REJOINDER, LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY AN ANCILLARY DOCUMENT TO THE SUBSTANTIAL AND SELF SPEAKING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE FILED IN THE FORM OF BANK STATEMENT AND CONFIRMATION OF THE MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS BEEN IGNORED NOT ONLY BY THE AO BUT ALSO BY THE LD CIT(A) WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION, WHICH IS UNREASONABLE AND UNJUSTIFIED APPROACH OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, A PLAUSIBLE AND JUSTIFIED VIEW MAY KINDLY BE TAKEN IN THIS REGARD. 16. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I PERUSED THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AS REFERRED ABOVE. I FIND THAT PAGE 30 OF APB CONTAINS MATURITY OF EARLIER INVESTMENT OF RS.2,19,952/- ON 13.8.2012, PAGE 36 CONTAINS THE TRANSFER OF RS.2,50,000/- ON 13.8.2012, WHICH WAS MATURITY AMOUNT OF RS.2,29,594/- ON 11.8.2012. ON PERUSAL OF THE BANK STATEMENT, I OBSERVE BEFORE MAKING FDR OF RS.7,00,000/-, THE CREDIT BALANCE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.7,29,627/-. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT HE HAS CREDIT BALANCE TO MAKE THE FD OF RS.7,00,000/-. AS ITA NO.51/CTK/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 P A G E 11 | 15 REGARDS THE FD OF RS.2,25,000/-, I ALSO OBSERVE THAT THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN RS.2,10,000/- , WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF ALONGWITH THE BANK STATEMENT. ACCORDINGLY, I DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.7,00,000/- AND RS.2,25,000/- AND ALLOW GROUND NO.3 OF THE ASSESSEE. 17. GROUND NO.4 RELATES TO CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.4,07,700/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. 18. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID RS.4,07,700/- AGAINST CREDIT CARD BILLS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF SUCH REPAYMENT AGAINST CREDIT CARD PURCHASES FOR RS.4,07,700/-. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE ON BEHALF OF HIS WIFE SMT. GEETANJAI PARIDA. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE CITI BANK CREDIT CARD BRANCH SITUATED AT BARAMUNDA, BHUBANESWAR HAS BEEN CLOSED DOWN, HENCE, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO FURNISH THE DETAILED STATEMENT. AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS IN SUPPORT OF PAYMENT OF CREDIT CARD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED RS.4,07,700/- TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. 19. ON APPEAL, THE LD CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 20. LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CREDIT CARD WAS OBTAINED JOINTLY IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF ITA NO.51/CTK/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 P A G E 12 | 15 HIS IN-LAWS AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE OF HIS SISTER IN-LAW I.E WIFES SISTER. LD COUNSEL EXPLAINED THAT THE MARRIAGE OF SISTER IN LAW MS USHA RANI WAS HELD ON 12.5.2013 BUT AFTER THE ENGAGEMENT FOR PREPARATION OF MARRIAGE VIZ; PURCHASE OF HOUSEHOLD ITEMS, GIFT ITEMS, CLOTHING AND JEWLLERY, ETC WAS GOING ON AFTER DIWALI. LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF GESTURE TO SUPPORT THE IN-LAWS FAMILY, THE ASSESSEE ALLOWED HIS WIFE TO MAKE PURCHASES BY USING CREDIT CARD AND THE FATHER-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE GAVE MONEY TO HIS WIFE IN SMALL AMOUNT, WHICH WAS DEPOSITED WITH THE BANK TO SETTLE THE CREDIT CARD DUES. THEREFORE, THIS EXPENDITURE IS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED ATTRACTING TRIGGER OF SECTION 69C OF THE ACT. LD COUNSEL STRENUOUSLY CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A RICH OR WELL RESOURCE PERSON WHO COULD MAKE PURCHASES OF RS.4,07,700/- DESPITE THE FACT THAT HE IS A SALARY PERSON AND HIS WIFE SUPPORT HIM BY DOING TAILORING WORK AND THE ASSESSEE CANNOT DARE TO MAKE SUCH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT RESOURCE AND WITHOUT ANY REQUIREMENT. LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IN THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND LOOKING TO THE MARRIAGE CARD OF THE SISTER-IN-LAW, IT IS CLEARLY DISCERNIBLE THAT THE PURCHASE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR MARRIAGE OF HER SISTER AND DUES HAS BEEN SETTLED ON RECEIPTS OF AMOUNT FROM HIS FATHER IN-LAW. THEREFORE, NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. 21. REPLYING TO ABOVE, LD DR DREW MY ATTENTION TOWARDS ASSESSMENT ORDER AND FIRST APPELLATE ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ITA NO.51/CTK/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 P A G E 13 | 15 SUBMIT ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF SOURCE FOR PAYMENT OF CREDIT CARD DUES. THEREFORE, THE AO WAS CORRECT IN TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE OUT OF INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND ADDING THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 22. PLACING REJOINDER, LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO FINDING EITHER BY THE AO OR BY LD CIT(A) REGARDING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PURCHASE HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE OF HIS SISTER-IN-LAW AND DUES HAS BEEN SETTLED BY THE ASSESSEE ON AMOUNTS RECEIVED ON SMALL AMOUNTS. LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE WAS REOPENED U/S.147 AFTER 4 YEARS BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT ON 22.3.2017 OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO COLLECT FURTHER DETAILS OR STATEMENTS PERTAINING TO CREDIT CARD BUT THE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACT THAT THE MARRIAGE OF THE ASSESSEES SISTER-IN-LAW USHA RANI WAS SOLEMNIZED ON 12.5.2013 AND PURCHASE OF GIFT ITEMS ETC STARTED IMMEDIATELY AFTER ENGAGEMENT WHICH WAS HELD AFTER DIWALI IN THE YEAR 2012. 23. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD OF THE CASE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE JOINTLY WITH HIS WIFE HAS OBTAINED A CREDIT CARD TO MEET THE IMMEDIATE PURCHASE OF DIFFERENT MATERIALS IN CONNECTION WITH MARRIAGE OF SISTER-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PURCHASES BY USING THE CREDIT CARD. IN THIS CONNECTION, LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO MARRIAGE ITA NO.51/CTK/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 P A G E 14 | 15 INVITATION CARD OF THE SISTER-IN-LAW SOLEMNIZED ON 12.5.2013. THE CREDIT CARD PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER RECEIVING SMALL AMOUNT IN PART FROM THE FATHER IN-LAW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISBELIEVED THE PURCHASES AND CONSEQUENT PAYMENT IN RESPECT OF CREDIT CARD. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN REOPENED U/S.147 IN THE YEAR 2017 AND THE ASSESSMENT RELATES TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO COLLECT THE DETAILS FROM THE CITI BANK TOWARDS CREDIT CARD PAYMENT IN THE YEAR 2017 AFTER PRETTY LONG TIME. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT IF ALL PAYMENTS TO CREDIT CARD WAS MADE THROUGH BANK, THEN SUCH EXPENSES SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND, NO ADDITION SHALL BE MADE UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. HENCE, I DIRECT TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.4,07,700/-. 24. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 23/07/2021. SD/- (CHANDRA MOHAN GARG) JUDICIAL MEMBER CUTTACK; DATED 23/07/2021 B.K.PARIDA, SPS (OS) ITA NO.51/CTK/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 P A G E 15 | 15 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER SR.PVT.SECRETARY ITAT, CUTTACK 1. THE APPELLANT : PRASANNA KUMAR NANDA, PROP. NO.EB - 78, BRIT COLONY, LAXMI SAGAR STAGE-1, BHUBANESWAR 2. THE RESPONDENT. ITO, WARD - 3(4), BHUBANESWAR 3. THE CIT(A) - 2 , BHUBANESWAR 4. PR.CIT - 2 BHUBANESWAR 5. DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//