VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH IH-DS-CALY] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEM BER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 569/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI NAND SINGH RAO 13-C, GREATER KAILASH, BEHIND GEHLOT NURSING HOME, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD- 6 (2) JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: ABFPR 6130 E VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIJAY GOYAL, C.A. JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY :SHRI O.P. BHATEJA, ADDL.CIT -DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 05/11/2015 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06/11/2015 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER P.K. BANSAL, AM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-II, JAIPUR DATED 12-03-2013 BY TAKING TW O GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2.1 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED GROUND NO. 2. HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED BEING NOT PRESSED. 3.1 NOW THERE REMAINS ONLY ONE GROUND WHICH READS A S UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMI NG THE ADDITION OF RS. 2.61,048/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEX PLAINED ALLEGED CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT. ITA NO. 569/JP/2013 SHRI NAND SINGH RAO VS. ITO, WARD- 6 (2), JAIPUR 2 4.1 THE FACTS RELATING TO THIS GROUND ARE THAT THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 2,61,048/- AS UNEXPLAINED U/S 69B OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961.THE AO NOTED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS. 3.90 LACS ON DIFFERENT DATES IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITH BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. WHEN CALLED FOR THE EXP LANATION, THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING OPENING CASH IN HAND AT RS. 2,99,250/- BUT THE EXPL ANATION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,28,952/- AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 2,61,048/- WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 4.2 I HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CON SIDERED THE SAME ALONGWITH THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. I NOTED THAT AS PER BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE AS ON 31-03-2007, THE COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 37 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH FORMS THE PART OF THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REVENUE AS CASH IN HAND AS ON 31-03-2007 AT RS. 2,99,250/-. IN EARLIER YEAR ALSO AS ON 31-03-20 06, THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING CASH IN HAND AT RS. 4,00,030/- . IN MY OPINI ON, THE CASH IN HAND AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,99,250/- AS ON 31-03-2007 WAS SU FFICIENT TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF RS. 2,61,048/-. THERE IS NO PROVISION UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT WHICH STIPULATES THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT HAVE CASH IN HAND TO THIS EXTENT WITH HIM. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING CASH IN HAND AS ON 31-03- ITA NO. 569/JP/2013 SHRI NAND SINGH RAO VS. ITO, WARD- 6 (2), JAIPUR 3 2007 WHICH WAS SUFFICIENT TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF RS. 2,61,048/-, I THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AN D DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,61,048/-. 5.0 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06/11/2 015. SD/- IH IHIH IH- -- -DS DSDS DS- -- -CALY CALY CALY CALY (P.K. BANSAL) YS[KK YS[KK YS[KK YS[KK LNL;@ LNL;@ LNL;@ LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 06 /11/ 2015 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI NAND SINGH RAO, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD- 6 (2), 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. 569/JP/2013) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR