SHRI KULDEEP KUMAR, HOSHIARPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2, HOSHIARPUR

ITA 538/ASR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6594 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business income; Search and seizure
• Section: 68; 69; 143(1); 69B; 143(2); 69A; 113

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 538/(Asr)/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sh. Kuldeep Kumar Prop. Sh. Sai Jewellers, Sarafan Bazar, Hoshiarpur [PAN: BZBPK 3870M] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Hoshiarpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Y. K. Sud, CA Respondent by: Sh. Trilochan Singh PS Khalsa, DR Date of Hearing : 24.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 21.03.2022 ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-1, Jalandhar dated 23.05.2019, which in turns arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’) dated 21.03.2013 for Assessment Year 2013-14. Before us the assessee has assailed the impugned order by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That under the facts & circumstances of the case, the worthy CIT(A) has erred to confirm the addition of Rs.39,10,932/- on account of Excess Stock by ignoring the Revised stock tally wherein all the quantity of Sale as per Bills and Stock match. The worthy CIT has given relief to the assessee on the first ground of appeal relying on the same Stock Tally and ignored the same in this unjustified addition. Shri Kuldeep Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 ITA No. 538/Asr/2019 2 The addition is arbitrary, unjust, uncalled-for, illegal and in any case highly excessive and against the material placed on record. 2. That the worthy CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in sustaining the addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 as made by the Assessing Officer. Such action being palpably wrong and grossly unjust must be quashed. 3. That the orders of the worthy CIT(A) and AO are against the law and facts of the case. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee who is engaged in the business of purchase /sale of bullion had e-filed his return of income for assessment year 2013-14 on 30.09.2013, declaring an income of Rs.4,02,710/-. Return of income filed by the assessee was initially processed as such u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s 143(2) of the Act. 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the A.O that the assessee had purchased bullion from State Bank of India, Ludhiana and from other firms on a wholesale basis and had thereafter sold the same both on cash and credit basis to different concerns. The A.O directed the assessee to place on record his daily stock statement for the year under consideration. In compliance, the assessee on 27.08.2015 filed the daily stock statement which read as under: Date Opening Receipt Total Issued Closing GM.MG GM.MG GM.MG GM.MG GM.MG 03/01/2013 1000.00 1000.00 942-430 57-570 04/01/2013 57-570 2000.00 2057-570 2057-570 07/01/2013 6000.00 6000.00 5948-650 51-350 08/01/2013 51-350 3000.00 3051-350 3000.00 51-350 16.01.2012 51-530 1000.00 1051-350 1000.00 51-350 17.01.2013 51-530 1000.00 1051-350 1000.00 51-350 21.01.2013 51-530 1000.00 1051-350 1000.00 51-350 Shri Kuldeep Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 ITA No. 538/Asr/2019 3 22.01.2013 51-350 1000.00 1051-350 1000.00 51-350 30.01.2013 51-350 1500.00 1551-350 1000.00 551-350 09.02.2013 551-350 1000.00 1551-350 1000.00 551-350 11.02.2013 551-350 - 551-350 360-400 190-850 15.02.2013 190-950 2000.00 2190-950 1133-790 1057-160 16.02.2013 1057-160 - 1057-160 866-210 190-950 20.02.2013 190-950 1000.00 1190-950 837-290 353-660 22.02.2013 353-660 1000.00 1353-660 570-480 783-180 23.02.2013 786-180 1000.00 1783-180 703-370 1079-810 26.02.2013 1079-810 1000.00 2079-810 2043-830 35-980 27.02.2013 35-980 1000.00 1035-980 1000.00 35-980 01.03.2013 35-980 2000.00 2035-980 983-810 1052-170 02.03.2013 1052-170 - 1052-1700 970-410 81-760 09.03.2013 81-760 3000.00 3081-760 1760-140 1321-62 11.03.2013 1321-620 1000.00 2321-620 1239-860 1081-760 12.03.2013 1081-760 - 1081-760 701-210 380-550 13.03.2013 380-550 1000.00 1380-550 - 1380-550 18.03.2013 1380-550 1000.00 2380-550 1000.00 1380-550 20.03.2013 1380-550 1000.00 2380-550 1000.00 1380-550 28.03.2013 1380-550 - 1380-550 299-680 1080-870 30.03.2013 1080-870 - 1080-870 936-720 144-150 31.03.2013 144-150 - 144-150 99-710 44-440 On a perusal of the copies of the purchase/sale bills which were produced by the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the A.O that bullion sold by the assessee as per the following sale bills were not recorded in the aforementioned stock statement : Name of the parties Date of sale Bill No. Quantity of gold Amount 1. M/s. Kapoor Sons Jewellers, Hsp. 28.01.2013 V 1 451.250 Gram Rs.13,85,360/- 2. M/s. Jagdambay Jewellers, Hosp. 28.08.2013 V 2 1000 gram Rs.30,60,000/- Shri Kuldeep Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 ITA No. 538/Asr/2019 4 Backed by the aforesaid facts the A.O called upon the assessee to put forth an explanation as regards the aforesaid unrecorded sale transactions. In reply, the assessee vide his letter dated 03.12.2015 filed with the A.O a revised stock statement incorporating the aforesaid two sale transactions, as under : Date Opening Balance ( In Grams) Purchase Qty. ( in grams) Sales (in grams) Closing Balance ( in grams) 1 12.10.2012 0 1.50 0.00 1.50 2 16.10.2012 1.50 1.00 0.00 2.50 3 03.01.2013 2.50 1000.00 942.43 60.07 4 04.01.2013 60.07 2000.00 2057.57 2.50 5 07.01.2013 2.50 3000.00 0.00 3002.50 6 07.01.2013 3000.00 5948.65 53.85 7 08.01.2013 53.85 3000.00 3000.00 53.85 8 09.01.2013 53.85 0.00 36.04 17.81 9 10.01.2013 17.81 0.00 8.95 8.86 10 16.01.2013 8.86 1000.00 885.20 123.66 11 17.01.2013 123.66 1000.00 1024.05 99.61 12 21.01.2013 99.61 1000.00 1023.15 76.46 13 22.01.2013 76.46 1000.00 562.72 513.71 14 28.01.2013 513.71 0.00 451.24 62.47 15 30.01.2013 62.47 1500.00 100.00 1462.47 16 04.02.2013 1462.47 0.00 127.17 1335.30 17 05.02.2013 1335.30 0.00 135.99 1199.31 18 06.02.2013 1199.31 0.00 97.53 1101.78 19 07.02.2013 1101.78 0.00 39.31 1062.47 20 08.02.2013 1062.47 0.00 1000.00 62.47 21 09.02.2013 62.47 1000.00 639.60 422.87 22 11.02.2013 422.87 0.00 360.40 62.47 23 15.02.2013 62.47 2000.00 1133.79 928.68 24 16.02.2013 928.68 0.00 866.21 62.47 25 20.02.2013 62.47 1000.00 837.29 225.18 26 22.02.2013 225.18 1000.00 570.48 654.70 Shri Kuldeep Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 ITA No. 538/Asr/2019 5 27 23.02.2013 654.70 1000.00 703.37 951.33 28 25.02.2013 951.33 0.00 574.88 376.45 29 26.02.2013 376.45 1000.00 1313.98 62.47 30 27.02.2013 62.47 1000.00 1000.00 62.47 31 01.03.2013 62.47 2000.00 983.81 1078.66 32 02.03.2013 1078.66 0.00 970.41 108.25 33 09.03.2013 108.25 3000.00 1760.14 1348.11 34 11.03.2013 1348.11 1000.00 1239.86 1108.25 35 12.03.2013 1108.25 0.00 365.28 742.97 36 13.03.2013 742.97 1000.00 0.00 1742.97 37 18.03.2013 1742.97 1000.00 1829.89 913.08 38 20.03.2013 913.08 1000.00 0.00 1913.08 39 28.03.2013 1913.08 0.00 299.68 1613.40 40 29.03.2013 1613.40 0.00 532.53 1080.87 41 30.03.2013 1080.87 0.00 936.72 144.15 42 31.03.2013 144.15 0.00 99.71 44.44 Total 0 34502.50 34458.06 44.44 Elaborating on the reasons leading to filing of the revised stock statement, it was the claim of the assessee that in the original stock statement that was filed on 27.08.2015 certain discrepancies had crept in due to mistakes on the part of his accountant while compiling the same. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the aforesaid explanation of the assessee. Confining himself to the original stock statement that was filed by the assessee on 27.08.2015, the A.O dubbed the aforesaid two transactions of sale of bullion by the assessee as unrecorded sale transactions. Holding a conviction that the assessee had as per his convenience revised the stock statement and manipulated the same with a clear intent to incorporate the aforesaid unrecorded sales transactions the A.O concluded that the assessee had made the aforesaid unrecorded sales transactions from purchases which were made by him out of his undisclosed sources. Backed by his aforesaid conviction the A.O made an addition qua the Shri Kuldeep Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 ITA No. 538/Asr/2019 6 unrecorded sale transactions of 1451.240 grams (451.240 grams + 1000 grams) a/w the corresponding suppressed profit element of Rs.44,45,306/- (Rs.13,85,306/- + Rs.30,60,000/-) to the returned income of the assessee. It was further observed by the A.O that the original stock statement filed by the assessee on 27.08.2015, revealed, that the closing stock of bullion with him on 12.03.2013 was 380.550 grams. Taking cognizance of the fact that the assessee had thereafter, i.e, during the period 12.03.2013 to 31.03.2013 purchased 3000 grams of bullion, viz (i). 1000 grams of bullion on 13.03.2013; (ii).1000 grams of bullion on 18.03.2013; and (iii).1000 grams of bullion on 20.03.2013, the A.O worked out the stock of bullion at Rs.3380.550 grams. Considering the fact that the assessee had during the aforesaid period, i.e, 12.03.2013 to 30.03.2013 carried out sale of 2005.82 grams of bullion, as under: Name of the parties Date of sale Bill No. Quantity of gold Amount 1 M/s. Gujranwala Ornament House, Jal 28.03.2013 V3 299.680 Gram 8,95,482.80 2 Mahavir Crockery House Tanda, Urmar 29.03.2013 V4 560.560 Gram 15,84,276.75 3 M/s. Jagdambay Jewellers, Hosp. 30.03.2013 V5 909.560 Gram 23,81,219.75 4 M/s. Labha Mal Roshan Lal Jain, Hosiarpur 30.03.2013 V6 99.730 Gram 2,96,696.75 5 -do- -do- V7 36.580 Gram 1,08,825.50 6 -do- -do- V8 99.710 Gram 2,96,7357.25 Total sale after 12.03.2012 2005.82 grams , the A.O was of the view that the assessee on 31.03.2013 was in possession of closing stock of bullion of 1374.73 grams [3380.550 grams (-) 2005.82 grams]. Observing that as against the closing stock of bullion of 1374.73 grams (supra) that was available with the assessee on 31.03.2013 only 44.440 grams was Shri Kuldeep Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 ITA No. 538/Asr/2019 7 reflected by him in his books of accounts, the A.O was of the view that the assessee had suppressed 1330.29 grams [1374.73 grams (-) 44.40 grams] in the closing stock of bullion on 31.03.2013. Accordingly, the A.O on the basis of his aforesaid deliberations made an addition towards suppressed closing stock of bullion of Rs. 39,10,932/- [i.e 1330.29 grams X Rs. 2939.31 per gram]. Also, as the assessee had failed to come forth with any plausible explanation as regards the nature and source of cash deposit of an amount of Rs. 6 lac in his SB A/c No. 65152619547 with State Bank of Patiala, Branch: Kanak Mandi, Hoshiarpur, therefore, the A.O made an addition of the same as an unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O vide his order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 21.03.2013 assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 97,08,950/- 4. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the impugned assessment order before the CIT(Appeals). In so far the addition of Rs.44,94,205/- that was made by the A.O on account of the impugned two unrecorded transactions of sale of bullion of 1451.240 grams (supra) was concerned, the CIT(Appeal), inter alia, after taking cognizance of the fact that the sale transactions in question were duly reflected in the revised stock statement filed by the assessee on 03.12.2015, thus, vacated the said addition. As regards the addition of Rs.39,10,932/- (supra) that was made by the A.O on account of suppression of 1330.29 grams of closing stock of bullion, the CIT(Appeals) upheld the same. As regards the addition of Rs. 6 lac (supra), though the CIT(Appeal) principally concurred with the A.O but sustained the said addition by triggering the provisions of Sec. 69A of the Act. Backed by her aforesaid observations the CIT(Appeal) partly allowed the assessee’s appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeal) has carried the matter in appeal before us. We have heard the ld. Authorized Shri Kuldeep Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 ITA No. 538/Asr/2019 8 Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by them to support their respective contentions. We shall first advert to the claim of the Ld. AR that the addition of Rs.39,10,932/- (supra) made by the A.O as regards the alleged suppressed 1330.29 grams (supra) of closing stock of bullion on 31.03.2013 cannot be sustained and is liable to be vacated. As observed by us hereinabove, it is a matter of fact borne from the record that the CIT(Appeals) had, inter alia, relying upon the revised stock statement that was filed by the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings on 03.12.2015 vacated the addition of Rs.44,45,306/- (supra) that was made by the A.O on account of sales of 1451.240 grams of bullion that were alleged to have been made by the assessee outside his books of accounts. Backed by the aforesaid fact, we are unable to comprehend that now when the revised stock statement had been accepted by the CIT(Appeal) for vacating the aforesaid addition made by the A.O as regards the unaccounted sales of bullion, then, on what basis he had refused to consider the very same stock statement that was pressed into service by the assessee to dislodge the adverse inferences that were drawn by the A.O as regards the alleged 1330.29 grams of suppression of closing stock of bullion on 31.03.2013. Clearly the addition made by the A.O qua the alleged suppression of 1330.29 grams of closing stock of bullion on 31.03.2013 finds its roots in the original stock statement that was filed by the assessee on 27.08.2015, i.e, in the course of the assessment proceedings. As observed by us hereinabove, the assessee had thereafter, on 03.12.2015, i.e, in the course of assessment proceedings placed on record a revised stock statement, therein claiming that the original stock statement suffered from certain mistakes which had crept in at the time of compiling of the same by his accountant. We find that the CIT(Appeal) while vacating the addition of Rs. 44,94,205/- (supra) that was made by the A.O as Shri Kuldeep Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 ITA No. 538/Asr/2019 9 regards the unaccounted sales of 1451.240 grams (supra) of bullion, had, inter alia, relied and acted upon the revised stock statement that was filed by the assessee on 03.12.2015, i.e, in the course of the assessment proceedings. For the sake of clarity the relevant observations of the CIT(A) are culled out as under : (A). Re: Sales to M/s Kapoor Sons (451.240 grams) : Rs. 13,85,306/- : “Further it is explained that sales were included in the total sales as per VAT return. As per the revised stock statement (reproduced in the assessment order) stock was available with the assessee out of which sale was made.” (B). Re: Sales to M/s Jagdambay Jewellers (1000 grams) : Rs. 30,60,000/- : “As per the revised stock statement produced before the assessing officer, the assessee has stock in hand which was sold to M/s Jagdambay Jewellers.” However, quite strangely, the CIT(A) despite finding the revised stock statement filed by the asseseee on 03.12.2015 as being in order, and, inter alia, by acting on the same had though vacated the additions that were made by the A.O on account of alleged unaccounted sales of Rs. 44,94,205/-, however, he had thereafter refused to take cognizance of the said statement which was relied upon and pressed into service by the assessee to dislodge the allegation of the A.O as regards suppression of 1330.29 grams of closing stock of bullion. Apart from that, we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer except for claiming that the revised stock statement filed by the assessee on 03.12.2015 was merely an attempt on his part to show availability of sufficient stock with him on the dates corresponding to those on which the sale transactions in question had taken place had however, failed to place on record any such material which would reveal any infirmity in the said revised stock statement. In fact, we find that the A.O had though alleged that the assessee had as per his convenience filed the revised stock statement which was based on manipulated Shri Kuldeep Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 ITA No. 538/Asr/2019 10 figures, but then, there is no whisper by him in the assessment order which would irrefutably support his claim that the revised stock statement did not reveal the true state of affairs, and thus, was liable to be rejected. In our considered view the aforesaid summarily rejection of the assessee’s revised stock statement by the A.O cannot be accepted, specifically when the CIT(Appeal), inter alia, by drawing support from the same had vacated the addition of Rs.44,45,306/- (supra) that was made by the A.O on account of alleged unaccounted sales made by the assessee. At this stage, we may herein observe, that though the assessee on 03.12.2015 and thereafter on 08.01.2016 had duly produced before the A.O his complete books of accounts a/w. the sale bills, purchase bills, cash book and stock register but the A.O had without pointing out any infirmity in the revised stock statement in the backdrop of the assessee’s books of accounts, had however, most arbitrarily de hors surfacing of any discrepancy rejected the same. At this stage, we may herein observe, that it is beyond our comprehension that now when the A.O had vacated the disallowance qua the unaccounted sales of 1451.40 grams (supra) of bullion of Rs. 44,45,306/- (supra), and had concluded that the said sales were duly accounted by the assessee in his books of accounts, then, after having so held how he could have relied and acted upon the original stock statement that was filed by the assessee on 27.08.2015 wherein the said sale transactions were not reflected. In sum and substance, having concluded that the sales of 1451.40 grams (supra) of bullion were duly accounted for by the assessee in his books of accounts, then, there was no justification on the part of the A.O in pressing into service the original stock statement that was filed by the assessee on 27.08.2015 for determining the quantity of closing stock of bullion on 31.03.2013. In our considered view, the A.O had partly relied upon the original stock statement, dated 27.08.2015 and partly on the revised stock statement, dated 03.12.2015, Shri Kuldeep Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 ITA No. 538/Asr/2019 11 and on the basis of distorted facts and jumbled up figures drawn adverse inferences as regards suppression of closing stock of bullion by the assessee. 6. Also, we find that the addition towards impugned suppression of 1330.29 grams (supra) of bullion had been made by the Assessing Officer, for the reason, that after considering the purchases of 3000 grams of bullion made by the assessee subsequent to 12.03.2013, viz. (i) 1000 grams of bullion on 13.03.2013; (ii) 1000 grams of bullion on 18.03.2013; and (iii) 1000 grams of bullion on 20.03.2013, and, the sales of 2005.82 grams of bullion made by him over the same period, the closing stock of bullion with the assessee on 31.03.2013 as per the A.O. worked out at 1374.73 grams [3380.550 grams (-) 2005.82 grams]. Considering the fact that now when the assessee as against the availability of 1374.73 grams of closing stock of bullion with him on 31.03.2013 had reflected closing stock of only 44.440 grams of bullion in his financial statements for the year under consideration, the A.O had concluded that there was a suppression of 1330.29 grams of closing stock of bullion by the assessee. Accordingly, the A.O backed by his aforesaid observations had determined the value of the suppressed 1330.29 grams of closing stock of bullion at Rs.39,10,932/- [i.e 1330.29 grams X Rs. 2939.91/- per gram]. 7. As observed by us hereinabove, the impugned sale transactions, i.e, those made during the period 12.03.2013 to 31.03.2013 and considered by the lower authorities for arriving at the impugned 1330.29 grams of suppressed closing stock of bullion on 31.03.2013 are as under : Name of the parties Date of sale Bill No. Quantity of gold Amount 1 M/s. Gujranwala Ornament House, Jal 28.03.2013 V3 299.680 Gram 8,95,482.80 2 Mahavir Crockery House Tanda, Urmar 29.03.2013 V4 560.560 Gram 15,84,276.75 Shri Kuldeep Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 ITA No. 538/Asr/2019 12 3 M/s. Jagdambay Jewellers, Hosp. 30.03.2013 V5 909.560 Gram 23,81,219.75 4 M/s. Labha Mal Roshan Lal Jain, Hosiarpur 30.03.2013 V6 99.730 Gram 2,96,696.75 5 -do- -do- V7 36.580 Gram 1,08,825.50 6 -do- 31.03.2013 V8 99.710 Gram 2,96,7357.25 Total sale after 12.03.2012 2005.82 grams As can be gathered from the records to which our attention was drawn by the Ld. A.R during the course of hearing of the appeal, the aforesaid quantitative compilation of sales by the A.O, which thereafter had been adopted by the CIT(A) reveals that the A.O had failed to take cognizance of certain facts, viz. (i) Bill No.V4, dated 29.03.2013 issued by the assessee to M/s. Mahavir Crockery House, Tanda Urmar of 560.560 grams (gross weight) of 95% purity on conversion into 99.50% purity was reduced to 532.50 grams and (ii). Bill No.V5, dated 30.03.2013 that was issued by the assessee to M/s. Jagdamby Jewellers, Hoshiarpur of 909.560 grams (gross weight) of 88% purity on conversion into 99.50% purity was reduced to 800.4 grams. Backed by the aforesaid facts, as stated by the ld. A.R, and rightly so, the lower authorities while arriving at the impugned suppression of 1330.29 grams (supra) of closing stock of bullion had failed to take cognizance of the net weight of bullion, i.e, of 99.50% purity gold weight (on conversion) as was mentioned in the respective invoices and was duly considered by the assessee in his revised stock statement. We find that the aforesaid claim of the assessee can safely be gathered on a perusal of the respective sale bills in question, viz. (i) Invoice No.V4, dated 29.03.2013 of 560.560 grams (gross weight) i.e.95% purity which on conversion into 99.50% purity was reduced to 532.5 grams (net weight); and (ii). Invoice No.V5, dated 30.03.2013 of 909.560 grams (gross weight) i.e. 88% Shri Kuldeep Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 ITA No. 538/Asr/2019 13 purity which on conversion into 99.59% purity was reduced to 800.4 grams (net weight). 8. Considering the aforesaid two fold contentions of the ld. A.R we find substantial force in the same, viz (i). that the CIT(Appeal) by taking recourse to a self-contradictory approach had wrongly refused to consider the assessee’s revised stock statement; and (ii). that the A.O had erred in not considering the net weight (i.e weight of 99.50% purity gold as mentioned in the invoices) of the aforementioned two sale transactions in question, viz. (a) Invoice No.V4, dated 29.03.2013 of 560.560 grams (gross weight) i.e 95% purity which on conversion into 99.50% purity was reduced to 532.5 grams (net weight); and (b). Invoice No.V5, dated 30.03.2013 of 909.560 grams (gross weight) i.e. 88% purity which on conversion into 99.59% purity was reduced to 800.4 grams (net weight). Backed by our aforesaid observations, we herein vacate the addition of Rs.39,10,932/- (supra.) made by the Assessing Officer towards the alleged suppression of the stock of bullion. Accordingly, we set-aside the order of the CIT(Appeal) to the extent he had upheld the addition of Rs.39,10,932/- (supra) made by the A.O. The Ground of appeal No.1 is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 9. As regards the addition of Rs.6 lacs that was made by the Assessing Officer qua the cash deposit in the assessee’s bank account No.65152619547 with State Bank of Patiala, Branch : Kanak Mandi, Hoshiarpur on 03.01.2013, it was the claim of the ld. A.R that as the said amount was deposited out of the common funds that were available with the assessee and his son, viz. Shri Robin Kumar, Prop. M/s. Robin Jewellers, therefore, no addition on the said count was called for in the hands of the assessee. Alternatively, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the CIT(Appeals) had grossly erred in law and the facts of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs.6 lacs u/s.69A of the Act. Elaborating on his Shri Kuldeep Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 ITA No. 538/Asr/2019 14 aforesaid contention, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that as the provisions of section 69A of the Act are triggered and brought into play only where an assessee is found to be owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles, therefore, the same by no stretch of imagination could be applied qua the cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee. It was the claim of the Ld. AR that as cash after having been deposited in the bank looses its character as that of money, therefore, the same though unexplained would clearly fall beyond the realm of the provisions of section 69A of the Act. In support of his aforesaid contention the Ld. AR had relied on the order of the ITAT, Delhi “A”, Special Bench in the case of Manoj Aggarwal Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 113 ITD 377 ( Delhi) (SB). Also support was drawn by the Ld. AR from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.C.C Software Ltd. & Ors Vs. DIT (Investigation) & Ors (2008) 298 ITR 1 (SC). Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs. Andhra Pradesh Yarn Combines P. Ltd. (2006) 282 ITR 490 (Kar.) and that of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT Vs. Jauharimal Goel, (2008) 296 ITR 263 (All.). 10. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) supported the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the Ld. DR that as the assessee had failed to come forward with any plausible explanation as regards the source of the cash deposits in question, therefore, the lower authorities had rightly sustained the said addition. Rebutting the claim of the Ld. AR that as the cash of Rs. 6 lacs(supra) deposited by the assessee in his bank account lost its character as that of money, thus, the same could not have been added u/s.69A of the Act, the Ld. DR had drawn support from the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Smt. Kavita Shri Kuldeep Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 ITA No. 538/Asr/2019 15 Chandra Vs. CIT (2017) 81 taxmann.com.317 (P&H) and that of Naresh Kumar Vs. CIT (2017) 88 taxmann.com 547 (P&H). 11. In so far the claim of the assessee that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 6 lacs (supra) was sourced from the funds lying in the common pool with him and his son, viz. Sh. Robin Kumar, Prop. M/s. Robin Jewellers, Hoshiarpur, we are afraid is an explanation which being devoid of any merit cannot be accepted. As regards the claim of the Ld. AR that CIT(Appeal) had grossly erred in law and the facts of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs.6 lac (supra) u/s.69A of the Act, we find that the same is based on the premise that as cash on being deposited in the bank account looses the colour and character of “money”, therefore, addition qua such cash deposits in the bank account, though unexplained, could not be made by triggering the provisions of section 69A of the Act. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the Ld. AR and are afraid that the same do not find favor with us. As observed by us hereinabove, the ld. A.R in order to buttress his aforesaid claim had relied on various judicial pronouncements. In so far the decision of the ITAT, Delhi, ‘Special Bench’ in the case of Manoj Aggrawal Vs. DCIT (supra) is concerned, we find the same was rendered in the context of an assessee who was not maintaining any books of account. It was in the backdrop of the facts therein involved that the Tribunal had concluded that though Section 68 would not be applicable yet cash deposit in the bank should be explained by the assessee under section 69 or section 69B of the Act. Unlike the aforementioned case, as in the case before us the assessee had duly maintained his books of account, therefore, we afraid that the aforesaid judicial pronouncement being distinguishable on facts would not assist his case. As regards the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs. Andhra Pradesh Yarn Combines P. Ltd. (supra), we find that the same too is distinguishable on Shri Kuldeep Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 ITA No. 538/Asr/2019 16 facts. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble High Court was in context of ‘Demonetized Currency Notes’. It was observed by the Hon’ble High Court that as the currency notes on the day when they were found to be in possession of the assessee did not have any representative value, therefore, it could not be tendered as ‘money’ which has an intrinsic value. It was observed by the Hon’ble High Court that as ‘Demonetized Currency Notes’ in question were nothing but scrap paper which could not be used as circulating medium in general use and therefore, it could not be said that the assessee was in possession of unexplained money. Also we find that reliance placed by the Ld. AR on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.C.C. Software & Ors Vs. DIT (Investigation) (supra) being distinguishable on facts, would not assist his case. In the aforesaid case, it was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that when moneys are deposited in a bank the relationship between the banker and the customer is one of debtor and creditor and not as that of a trustee and beneficiary. Admittedly, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, once moneys are deposited by the assessee in a bank account, then, the banker is entitled to use the monies without being called upon to account for such user as his only liability is to return the amount in accordance with the terms agreed between him and the customer. But then, we cannot remain oblivious of the fact that at the relevant point of time, i.e, when the assessee had deposited the ‘money’ in his bank account which had resulted to the aforesaid relationship as that of a debtor and creditor inter-se the banker and the assessee, the latter was the owner of the same. Accordingly, there is no gainsaying that as at the relevant point of time, i.e, at the time of deposing the ‘money’ in the bank account during the year under consideration, i.e, on 03.01.2013 the assessee was admittedly the owner of the said amount which was not recorded in his books of accounts, and, no explanation about the nature and sources of the acquisition of the same was offered by him, therefore, no infirmity could be related to the treating of the Shri Kuldeep Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 ITA No. 538/Asr/2019 17 same as unexplained money within the meaning of section 69A of the Act by the CIT(A). 12. On the contrary, though the term ‘money’ is not defined under the Act, however, the meaning and import of the same can safely be gathered from the meaning accorded to it in section 226(3) of the Act, which reads as under: “(3) (i) The Assessing Officer or Tax Recovery Officer may, at any time or from time to time, by notice in writing require any person from whom money is due or may become due to the assessee or any person who holds or may subsequently hold money for or on account of the assessee to pay to the Assessing Officer or Tax Recovery Officer either forthwith upon the money becoming due or being held or at or within the time specified in the notice (not being before the money becomes due or is held) so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the amount due by the assessee in respect of arrears or the whole of the money when it is equal to or less than that amount.” On a perusal of the aforesaid statutory provision, we find that the same contemplates that where any person (including a banker) from whom money is due or may become due to the assessee, shall pay to the Assessing Officer so much of the money as is sufficient to discharge the outstanding arrears of the assessee. On a careful perusal of the language used in the aforesaid statutory provision, it can safely be gathered, that the department in exercise of its powers u/s.226(3) of the Act may call upon a banker to pay the money held in the account of the assessee towards discharge of the latters arrears due towards the department. In sum and substance, the aforesaid statutory provision, i.e, Section 226(3) of the Act clearly recognizes the amount lying in the bank account of the assessee as ‘money’. In the backdrop of the aforesaid position of law, we are of the considered view that a meaning of the term ‘money’ different to that as provided in sub-section (3) of Section 226 of the Act would neither be permissible nor justified. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations are unable to concur with the claim of the ld. AR that as the amount of Rs.6 lacs (supra) lying in the assessee’s saving bank account with State Bank of Patialia, Shri Kuldeep Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 ITA No. 538/Asr/2019 18 Branch :Kanak mandi, Hoshiarpur would not fall within the meaning of ‘money’, therefore, the CIT(Appeals) had wrongly triggered the provisions of section 69A of the Act and subjected to the same to tax. Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(A) that the unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 6 lac (supra) in the assessee’s bank account was liable to be brought to tax under Sec. 69A of the Act, we uphold the same. The Ground of appeal No.2 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 13. The Grounds of appeal no(s). 3 & 4 being general are dismissed as not pressed. 14. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in the open court on 21.03.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M.L. Meena) (Ravish Sood) Accountant Member Judicial Member Date: 21.03.2022 ***GP/Sr./PS & SB/PS Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(Appeals) (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True copy By Order