Ram Pal, Pehowa V. ITO, Kurukshetra

ITA 587/CHANDI/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68494 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 18-06-2006
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJEET SINGH
• Section: 68; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.587/CHD/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SHRI RAM PAL, VS THE ITO, PROP. M/S JABBAR SINGH & SONS, WARD-1, 26, NEW MARKET, KURUKSHETRA. PEHOWA. PAN : AKZPP-9888N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AJAY JAIN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJEET SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 12.09.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.09.2013 O R D E R PER T.R.SOOD, AM THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 09.04.2008 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) KAR NAL U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961 ( IN SHORT THE A CT ). 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN CONCLUDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SOLE BENEFICIARY OF THE JOINT BANK ACCOUNT OF THREE BROTHERS MAINTAINED FOR AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. 2. THAT AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AN D ON FACTS IN MAKING AND SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS.L 0,00,000/- U/S 68 A ND 69 OF THE I. TAX ACT , WHEN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS ARE ALREADY ON RECORD AND W ERE FULLY EXPLAINED WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. THE LD. A.O. HAS COMPLETELY FAILED TO BROUGHT OUT ANY POSITIVE MATERIAL TO CONTROVERT THE SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCES PRODUCED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 3. THE LD. A.O. IS NOT RIGHT IN LAW IN MAKING ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE FOR THE DEPOSITS IN THE JOINT BANK ACCOUNT OF THREE BROTHERS IN WHICH DEPOSITS REPRESENTED MAINLY AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND SALE OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE. 2 4 THAT AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN MAKING AND SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS.6,50,000/- WHEN THE A SSESSEE HAS DULY DISCHARGED HIS ONUS BY EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS WITH DOCU MENTARY EVIDENCES, AND IDENTITY OF PERSON CONCERNED WHEREAS THE LD. A.O. H AS COMPLETELY FAILED TO BROUGHT OUT ANY POSITIVE MATERIAL TO DISBELIEVE THE SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCES BUT REJECTED THE SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCES MERELY ON HI S SURMISES AND CONJECTURES 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT DUR ING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED T HAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE CERTAIN DEPOSITS IN A JOINT BANK ACCOUNT NO. 2707 WITH ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, PEHOWA, TH E DETAIL OF DEPOSITS IS AS UNDER : S.NO. AMOUNT DEPOSITED DATE OF DEPOSIT I) RS.5,00,000/- 5.5.2003 II) RS.5,00,000/- 5.6.2003 III) RS.2,50,000/- 19.1.2004 IV) RS.4,00,000/- 11.3.2004 TOTAL RS.16,50,000/- 4. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY REGARDING SOURCES OF TH E DEPOSITS, INITIALLY IT WAS STATED THAT A SUM OF RS. 5,00,000/- EACH HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM CC ACCOUNT NO. 671. H OWEVER, THE EXAMINATION OF THE CC ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER REVEALED THAT AMOUNT WITHDRAWN FROM CC ACCOUNT NO. 671 WAS ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND WAS USED FOR DISBURSEMENT TO THE FARMERS. WHEN THIS FACT WAS BR OUGHT TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE, ANOTHER REPLY WAS SU BMITTED WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNDER: 'IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ACCOUNT NO. 2707 OFO.B.C.PEHO WA IS NOT RELATED TO MY FIRM MIS JABBAR SINGH & SONS, PEHOWA AS ALL THE TRA NSACTION IN THAT ACCOUNT ARE FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND THE ACCOUNT IS MAINTAINED BY SH. GULSHAN KUMAR AND SH. HARISH KUMAR BEING JOINT ACCOUNT OF ALL OUT BROTHERS. THAT THE REPLY REGARDING DEPOSIT OF RS. 500000/- ON 5-5-2003 AND 500000/- 5-6-2003 AND RS. 300000/- ON 3-11-2003 IN ACCOUNT N O. 2707 WAS FILED ALONGWITH OTHER DETAILS ON 24-11-2006 IS WRONG AS THREE POINT S IN THAT REPLY SHOULD BE IGNORED AS THESE ENTRIES BELONG TO SAVING ACCOUNT NO. 2707 OF OBC PEHOWA, WHICH IS OPERATED BY SH. GULSHAN KUMAR AND SH. HARISH KUMAR WHICH IS RELATED TO 3 AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS TWO BROTHERS ARE CULTIVATING 275 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS AT VILLAGE CHANALHERI. THIS FACT CAN BE VERIFIED FROM EVERY PERSON OF THE AREA. SO, REQUESTED NOT TO CORRELATED THE ABOVE GIVEN ENTRIES OF RS. 5,00,0 00/- 5-5-2003, RS. 500000/- 5-6-2003, RS. 300000/-3-11-2003 RS. 250000/- 19-1-2 004 AND RS. 400000/- ON 11-3-2004. THAT THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNTS ARE AS DEPOSITS IN ACCO UNT 2707 DEPOSITED FROM THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME/SALES BY MY BROTHERS W HO ARE LOOKING AFTER THE AGRICULTURAL CULTIVATION. YOUR GOODSELFIS HUMBLY REQUESTED NOT TO CORRELATE T HE SAVING ACCOUNT NO. 2707 WITH THE FIRM M/S JABBAR SINGH & SONS, PEHOWA. ' ALONGWITH HIS REPLY, THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED AN AFF IDAVIT OF SHRI RAM PAL, WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW IN VERBATIM: 'I RAM PAL S/O SH. JABBAR SINGH R/O VILLAGE CHANALH ERI, DISTT. KURUKSHETRA DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY AFFIRM AND DECLARE A S UNDER: THAT WE ARE THREE BROTHERS. 1 LOOK AFTER THE BUSINE SS AS 1 HAVE MY OWN FIRM M/S JABBAR SIGH & SONS AT PEHOWA AND ALL THE TRANSACTIO NS IN THIS FIRM ARE LOOKED AFTER BY ME. THAT MY TWO BROTHERS SH. GULSHAN KUMAR AND SH. HARI SH KUMAR ARE CULTIVATING OUR ANCESTRAL LANDS MEASURING 275 ACRES AT OUR VILLAGE AND LOOK AFTER THE AGRICULTURAL CULTIVATION AND THEY HAVE ME NTIONED ONE AGRICULTURAL ACCOUNT IN OBC BANK PEHOWA AJC NO. 2707. THAT THE ACCOUNT NO. 2707 IS JOINT ACCOUNT BUT THIS IS OPERATED BY BOTH BROTHERS. THAT ALL THE DEPOSITS IN THAT SAVING ACCOUNT ARE FR OM AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THE NATURE OF DEPOSITS IN THAT ACCOUNT IS KNOWN TO MY BOTH BROTHERS WHO HAVE DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT FROM THEIR AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND NOT FROM THE CURRENT ACCOUNT OF MY FIRM AT ALL. THAT THE FOLLOWING DEPOSITS ASKED BY GOODSELF BELON GS TO A/C NO. 2707 AND NOT TO M/S JABBAR SINGH & SONS AT ALL. 1. 5 - 5 - 2003 500000/ - 2. 5-6-2003 500000/- 3. 3-11-2003 300000/- 4. 19-1-2004 250000/- 5. 11 - 3 - 2004 400000/ - THAT THE ABOVE GIVEN AMOUNT DOES NOT HAVE ANY CONCE RN WITH MY FIRM AS THE AMOUNTS WERE DEPOSITED BY MY BROTHERS FROM THE SALE S OF THEIR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF WHEAT, SUGAR CANE, PADDY, BARSIN, VEGETABLES ETC . IN ACCOUNT NO. 2707. THAT THE REPLY GIVEN BY MY FIRM ON 24-11-2004 REGAR DING AMOUNT OF RS. 500000/- DATED 5-5-2003 AND 500000/- DATED 5-6-2003 .AND RS. 300000/- DATED 3-11-2003 SHOULD TIE IGNORED AS THESE POINTS NO. 1, 2 & 3 IN THAT REPLY WERE WRITTEN WITHOUT VERIFYING THE FACTS AND IN IGNORANCE. THE REST PART OF THE REPLY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS CORRECT AS THESE AMOUNT DON'T RELATE TO THE FIRM HUT TO THE AGRICULTURAL ACCOUNT OF JOINT FAMILY. 4 5. THE ENQUIRIES IN RESPECT OF SALE OF COMBINE WERE ALSO MADE, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH CERTAIN DETAILS WERE FIL ED AND IT WAS REITERATED THAT DEPOSITS HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AS WELL AS SALE OF COMBINE. I T WAS ALSO STATED THAT AMOUNTS WERE WITHDRAWN BY SHRI HARISH K UMAR WHO WAS HOLDING A JOINT ACCOUNT NO. 5583 IN KURUKSH ETRA COOPERATIVE BANK, WHERE ASSESSEE WAS DEPOSITING THE SALE PROCEEDS OF SUGAR CANE. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT AS SESSEE ALONGWITH HIS TWO BROTHERS SHRI HARISH KUMAR AND SH GULSHAN KUMAR WAS OWNING ABOUT 275 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LA ND. 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER EXAMINING THE SUBMI SSIONS DID NOT FIND FORCE IN THE SAME. HE OBSERVED THAT A MOUNTS WITHDRAWN ON SALE PROCEEDS OF THE CROPS HAVE BEEN C REDITED TO THE RESPECTIVE ACCOUNTS OF THE BROTHERS IN THE BOOK S OF M/S JABBAR SINGH & SONS. FURTHER, THERE WAS A GAP OF MO RE THAN ONE MONTH IN THE WITHDRAWAL MADE FROM ACCOUNT NO. 5 583 AT KURUKSHETRA COOPERATIVE BANK AND THE DEPOSIT IN ACC OUNT NO.2707. IN RESPECT OF SALE OF COMBINE, IT WAS OBS ERVED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED ON 15.0 3.2003 BUT WAS NOT DEPOSITED IN ANY BANK. IN ANY CASE, REG ISTRATION OF COMBINE CONTINUED TO REMAIN IN THE NAME OF THREE BROTHERS. IN THISBACKGROUND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED A SU M OF RS. 10,00,000/- AND RS. 6,50,000/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DECIDED THE ISSU E VIDE PARA 5, WHICH IS AS UNDER : 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE ARE TWO ISSUES AS TO WHO IS THE BEN EFICIARY OF BANK A/C NO. 2707 IN OBC AND WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN T HIS BANK A/C. 5 FIRST, THE ISSUE OF BENEFICIARY OF THE BANK A/C IS TAKEN UP FOR DECISION. THE ASSESSEE IS THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S JABBAR SINGH & SO NS, WHERE HE RUNS THE BUSINESS OF COMMISSION AGENT/ AARHTI IN NEW GRAI N MARKET, PEHOWA. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT HE HAS TWO BROTHERS AN D THE BANK A/C IS THE JOINT BANK A/C WITH HIS TWO BROTHERS AS M/S JABBAR SINGH &. SONS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED THAT HIS FAMILY HAS 275 ACRES OF AGRICULTURE LAND WHEREAS, HE LOOKS AFTER THE BUSINESS OF THE COMMISS ION AGENT AND HIS BROTHERS LOOK AFTER THE AGRICULTURE. ASSESSEE HAS A LSO CLAIMED THAT THE BANK A/C NO. 2707 IS A JOINT A/C AND OPERATED BY HI S BROTHERS AND DEPOSITS RE ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE O F FAMILY LAND AND SALE OF COMBINE ETC. THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER PR ODUCED NOR FILED ANY DETAIL ABOUT THE COMPLETE STATUS OF HIS FAMILY, THE REFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE WANTS TO HIDE THE COMPLETE DETAIL S. IS THERE ANY HUF IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER TWO BROTHERS AR E CO-PARTNERS OR THERE IS NO SUCH HUF. WHETHER THE LAND CLAIMED BELO NG TO THE HUF OR INDIVIDUAL BROTHERS. WHETHER THE A/C IS THAT OF THE HUF OR IT IS AN AOP. SINCE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD, THERE FORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO HUF AND ALL THE BROTHERS ARE SEPARATE AND INDEPENDE NT. AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE LOOKS AFTER HIS PROPRIETARY BUSINESS AND B ROTHERS ARE CLAIMED TO BE DOING AGRICULTURE. THE BANK A/C DOES NOT BELONG TO THE HUF OR THE FAMILY AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, OF COURSE, IT HAS BEEN OPE NED IN THE JOINT NAMES OF THE THREE BROTHERS AND ALL THE THREE ARE AUTHORIZED SIG NATORIES BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE THE A/C AS THE FAMILY A/C OR THE HUF A/C, THER EFORE, ONE HAS TO FIND OUT THE BENEFICIARY TO FIND OUT THE REAL ACCOUNT HOLDER . THE BANK HAS CERTIFIED AS PER THE LETTER OF THE MANAGER WITH THE REPORT OF THE AO THAT THE A/C IS MAINLY OPERATED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY AND ASSESSEE HAS NOT REFUTED THIS FACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT ANY EVIDENCE WHICH PROVES EVEN A SINGLY OPERATION BY HIS BROTHERS IN THE BANK A/C. HIS BROTHERS HAVE NOT TAK EN ANY BENEFIT FROM THE BANK AND IT IS ASSESSEE ONLY WHO HAS TAKEN RS. 15 LAC DU RING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION FROM THIS BANK A/C IN HIS CURRENT ACC OUNT FOR USE IN HIS BUSINESS WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN RETURNED SO FAR. THE MONEY WHICH HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM A/C NO. 2707 HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN AS LOAN FROM OTHER BROTHERS OR FROM HUF. IT IS QUITE IMPOSSIBLE THAT THE BROTHERS OF THE ASSESSEE DEPOSI T THE MONEY AND ASSESSEE TAKES THE BENEFIT /ASSESSEE HAS NEVER SHOWN THE STATUS OF THE SO CALLED FAMILY AND OTHER BROTHERS NONE OF THEIR ASSESSMENTS, INCOME DETAILS OR ANY CONFIRMATION HAVE BEEN FILED FROM THEM, THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESS EE IS THE REAL BENEFICIARY AND HOLDER OF THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THE BANK A/C BELONGS TO HIM ONLY, OTHER BROTHERS ARE SHOWN AS JOINT A/C HOLDER FOR NAME SAKE OR TO D EFRAUD THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT DEPOSIT IN THE B ANK A/C ARE OUT OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE BY THE BROTHERS FROM THE LAND B ELONGING TO THE FAMILY BUT NO EVIDENCE REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE FAMILY AND DET AIL OF ITS INCOME OR ASSESSMENT ORDER HAVE BEEN FILED/ PRODUCED. DETAIL OF OTHER BROTHERS' INCOME, ASSESSMENTS, BANK A/C OR ANY OTHER CONFIRMA TION HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN PRODUCED. THEREFORE, IT IS MERELY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS A FAMILY AND IT HAS 275 ACRES OF LAND AND IT IS A JOINT FAMILY AND THE AGRICULTURE INCOME FROM FAMILY LAND IS DEPO SITED IN THE BANK A/C BUT THIS ENTIRE STORY HAS NO BASIS AND NO DOCUM ENTARY EVIDENCE, THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF A FAMILY, FAMILY LAND AND A GRICULTURE INCOME ARE BOGUS. THE LAND MIGHT BE BELONGING TO HIS BROTHERS BUT THEIR AGRICULTURE INCOME IS I SEPARATELY CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF, AS FOUND BY THE AO AND MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ABOUT ANY OTHER INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCE D ANY EVIDENCE WHICH CAN PROVE SUCH A CLAIM. EVEN IF IT IS PRESUMED THAT TWO BROTHERS OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ANY OTHER INCOME THEN THERE IS NO EVID ENCE THAT THE SAME WAS DEPOSITED IN BANK A/C NO. 2707. EACH AND EVERY ARGU MENT AND SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DEALT IN DETAIL BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER 6 AND I FULLY AGREE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. SIMI LARLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH ANY OTHER SOURCE OF DEPO SITS FROM SALE OF COMBINE OR SUGARCANE ETC. THE SAME HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED BY T HE AO IN DETAIL W.R.T EACH ITEM/ PARTY AND I FULLY AGREE WITH THE FINDING S OF THE AO, THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DEPOSITS OF RS. 10 LAC AND 6.5 LAC MADE IN A/C NO. 2707 ARE FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCE, WHEREAS, THE ACCOUNT BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE UNEXPLAINED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF THESE TOTAL DEPOSITS OF RS. 16.5 LAC BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. T HE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE ADDITION CAN NOT BE MADE U/S 68 IN CASE OF BANK DEPOSITS BUT AS IS CLEAR FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, BOTH THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE U/S 68 AND 69 AND BOTH SECTIONS HAVE CLEARLY B EEN MENTIONED BY THE AO. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS. 1 0 LAC AND 6.5 LAC TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ARE CONFIRMED AND THE GR OUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 8. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT ACCOUNT NO. 2707 WAS IN THE JOINT NAME OF THREE BROTHERS. IN THIS REGARD, HE REFERRE D TO PAGE NO.1 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS COPY OF THE BANK AC COUNT. FURTHER, THIS FACT WAS ENQUIRED BY CIT(APPEALS) VID E COPY OF LETTER DATED 7.12.2007 ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSING O FFICER, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 39 OF THE PAPER BOO K. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SENT THE REPLY IN THE FORM OF BANK CERTIFICATE WHICH IS AT PAGE 50 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE ALONGWITH HIS TWO BROTHERS SHRI HARISH KUMAR AND SHRI GULSHAN KUMAR WAS OWNING ANCE STRAL LAND MEASURING ABOUT 275 ACRES AND AGRICULTURAL INC OME WAS THERE. HE POINTED OUT THAT SHRI HARISH KUMAR HAD O PENED A BANK ACCOUNT WITH KURUKSHETRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE B ANK IN PEHOWA. THIS ACCOUNT WAS BASICALLY OPENED TO RECEI VE SALE PROCEEDS OF SUGARCANE FROM THE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY WHICH WAS SITUATED IN PEHOWA. THE MONIES WERE WITHDRAWN FROM THIS ACCOUNT ON VARIOUS DATES AND WERE USED FOR DEPOSIT IN THE OTHER BANK ACCOUNTS. HE FILED A COPY OF THE SUMMAR Y OF DAILY CASH RECEIPTS AND CASH DEPOSITS AND POINTED OUT THA T 7 SUFFICIENT SOURCES WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE . AS FAR AS SALE PROCEEDS OF COMBINE IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECEIVED FULL PAYMENT AND THAT IS WHY COMBINE WAS N OT TRANSFERRED. IN ANY CASE, REGISTRATION IS NOT A PRO OF FOR OWNERSHIP OF AN ASSET AND IN THIS REGARD, HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MY SORE MINERALS LTD. VS CIT 239 ITR 775 AND CIT V PODAR CE MENT (P) LTD. 226 ITR 625. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A PPEALS) HAS GONE ON A DIFFERENT TANGENT THAT BENEFICIARY OF THE JOINT ACCOUNT WAS ONLY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS NOT CORRECT BECAUSE THIS JOINT ACCOUNT WAS MAINLY USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AND WAS OPERATED BY TH REE BROTHERS. EVEN THE BANK CERTIFICATE CONFIRMS THIS POSITION. IN ANY CASE, NO ENQUIRY WAS MADE TO PROVE THAT THERE W AS EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE OF AN HUF DURING THE ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSE E HAS TRIED TO MISLEAD THE INVESTIGATIONS BECAUSE INITIAL LY IT WAS STATED THAT MONEY HAS COME FROM CC ACCOUNT. LATER ON IT WAS STATED THAT MONEY HAS COME FROM KURUKSHETRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK. FURTHER, THE THEORY OF SALE OF C OMBINE COULD NOT BE PROVED BECAUSE COMBINE CONTINUED TO BE IN TH E NAME OF ASSESSEE. HE, HOWEVER STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS). 10. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND FO RCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. FI RST OF ALL, PAGE NO.1 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS COPY OF THE AC COUNT WITH 8 ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE IN THEIR PEHOWA BRANCH, C LEARLY MENTIONS NAMES OF THREE BROTHERS NAMELY SHRI RAM PA L, SHRI HARISH KUMAR AND SHRI GULSHAN KUMAR. FURTHER, LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAD WRITTEN A LETTER DATED 7.12.2007, COPY OF THE SAME IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 39 OF THE PAPER BOOK, TO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WHEREIN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSE E HAVE BEEN FORWARDED FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION. DURING THIS I NVESTIGATION, ASSESSING OFFICER OBTAINED INFORMATION FROM THE ORI ENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE. THE LETTER OF ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERC E DATED 7.2.2008 IS PLACED AT PAGE 50 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND READS AS UNDER : THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO. 1, KURUKSHETRA. DEAR SIR, SUB : INFORMATION REGARDING SAVING BANK ACCOUNT NO. 270: SHRI RAM PAL. PLEASE REFER TO YOUR LETTER NO. ITO/W-1/2007-08 DAT ED 22.01.2008 WE GIVE BELOW THE DESIRED INFORMATION AS UNDER : 1. THE ACCOUNT IS OPENED IN THE NAMES OF SHRI RAM PAL, GULSHAN, HARISH KUMAR SS/O SHRI JABBAR SINGH WITH ANY ONE CA N OPERATE THE ACCOUNT. 2. ALL THREE ACCOUNT HOLDERS AS STATED ABOVE. 3. IN MOST OF THE CASE SHRI RAM PAL OPERATED THIS ACCO UNT DURING THE PERIOD 01.04.2003 TO 31.3.2004. 4. IN THE ACCOUNT THE DEPOSIT ENTRIES WERE MADE IN DIF FERENT DATES IN CASH AND THROUGH CHEQUES. 5. IN THE ACCOUNT SHRI RAM PAL AND OTHERS ARE BENEFICI ARY TO THE SAID ACCOUNT. THIS IS FOR YOUR INFORMATION AND RECORDS. YOURS FAITHFULLY, SD.- SR. MANAGER 11. THE ABOVE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT ACCOUNT NO. 2707 W AS A JOINT ACCOUNT. IT HAS NOT BEEN DENIED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER THAT 9 ASSESSEE ALONGWITH HIS BROTHERS WAS OWNING 275 ACR ES OF LAND WHICH WILL GENERATE HUGE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. NOWH ERE, IT HAS BEEN DISPUTED THAT ACCOUNT WITH KURUKSHETRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. WAS MAINLY OPENED TO RECEIVE THE SALE PROCEEDS OF SUGARCANE FROM THE COOPERATIVE SUGARCAN E FACTORY WHICH WAS LOCATED THERE. IN FACT, THE SOUR CES OF DEPOSITS IN THIS BANK HAVE NOT BEEN DOUBTED. CLEAR LY MONIES HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THIS ACCOUNT ON VARIOUS DA TES WHICH WE SHALL REPRODUCE LITTLE LATER. 12. WE ALSO FIND NO FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION THAT SALE OF COMBINE IS NOT GENUINE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COUL D HAVE EASILY MADE ENQUIRIES BY ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO PRO DUCE THE BUYER OF THE COMBINE, PARTICULARLY WHEN AN AFFIDAVI T HAD BEEN FILED, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 27 OF THE PA PER BOOK. SIMPLY BY STATING THAT REGISTRATION HAS NOT BEEN TR ANSFERRED, WILL NOT PROVE THAT COMBINE WAS NOT SOLD. 13. THE FOLLOWING SUMMARY OF CASH AVAILABLE AND DEPOSITS HAVE BEEN FILED : RAM PAL & BROTHERS CASH PAID/ DATE PARTICULARS CASH WITHDRAWAL DEPOSITED BALANCE CASH RECEIPTS 21.3.2003 WITHDRAWAL FROM BANK 500000 0 5 00000 A/C NO. 5583 7.4.2003 -DO- 200000 0 700000 5.5.2003 PART PAYMENT AGAINST SALE 500000 0 1200000 OF COMBINE 5.5.2003 DEPOSITED IN BANK A/C 2707 0 50 0000 700000 20.5.2003 WITHDRAWAL FROM A/C OF 46500 0 746500 HARISH KUMAR IN M/S JABBAR SINGH & SONS 24.5.2003 -DO- 30000 0 776500 26.5.2003 -DO- 40000 0 816500 30.5.2003 -DO- 13000 0 829500 2.6.2003 WITHDRAWAL FROM A/C OF 35000 0 864500 10 HARISH KUMAR IN M/S JABBAR SINGH & SONS 5.6.2003 PART PAYMENT AGAINST 250000 0 111 4500 SALE OF COMBINE 5.6.2003 DEPOSITED IN BANK A/C 0 500000 614500 NO. 2707 13.6.2003 WITHDRAWAL FROM A/C OF 30300 0 64 4800 HARISH KUMAR IN M/S JABBAR SINGH & SONS 14.6.2003 -DO- 20000 0 664800 19.6.2003 -DO- 36775 0 701575 23.6.2003 -DO- 15000 0 716575 27.6.2003 WITHDRAWAL FROM BANK 50000 0 766575 A/C NO. 2707 5/7/2003 WITHDRAWAL FROM A/C OF 25000 0 79 1575 HARISH KUMAR IN M/S JABBAR SINGH & SONS 10.7.2003 -DO- 20000 0 811575 14.7.2003 WITHDRAWAL FROM BANK 300000 0 1111575 A/C NO. 5583 16.7.2003 WITHDRAWAL FROM A/C OF 15000 0 1126575 HARISH KUMAR IN M/S JABBAR SINGH & SONS 21.7.2003 -DO- 5000 0 1131575 23.7.2003 WITHDRAWAL FROM BANK 200000 0 1331575 A/C NO. 5583 30.7.2003 -DO- 150000 0 1481575 11.8.2003 -DO- 200000 0 1681575 17.8.2003 -DO- 100000 0 1781575 1.9.2003 WITHDRAWAL FROM BANK 100000 0 1881575 A/C NO.2707 11/9/2003 -DO- 80000 0 1961575 27.9.2003 -DO- 100000 0 2061575 3.10.2003 -DO- 100000 0 2161575 7.10.2003 -DO- 50000 0 2211575 9.10.2003 -DO- 50000 0 2261575 3.11.2003 DEPOSITED IN BANK 0 300000 1961575 A/C NO. 2707 10.11.2003 WITHDRAWAL FROM BANK 600000 0 2561575 A/C NO. 5583 12.12.2003 -DO- 200000 0 276157 5 23.12.2003 -DO- 200000 0 296 1575 19.1.2004 DEPOSITED IN BANK A/C 0 250000 2711575 NO. 2707 31.1.2004 WITHDRAWAL FROM BANK 50000 0 2761575 A/C NO. 2707 11.3.2004 DEPOSITED IN BANK A/C 0 400000 2361575 NO. 2707 TOTAL 4311575 1950000 11 14. THE SOURCES OF DEPOSITS IN ACCOUNT NO. 5583 HAVE NOT BEEN DOUBTED WHICH HAS BEEN EXPLAINED TO BE OUT OF SALE OF SUGARCANE. THE READING OF THE ABOVE SUMMARY CLEARL Y SHOWS THAT SUFFICIENT CASH WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR DEPOSIT IN THE ACCOUNT NO. 2707 WHICH IS A JOINT ACCOUNT AND THERE FORE, WITHDRAWALS MADE EVEN BY SHRI HARISH FROM ACCOUNT N O. 5583 WITH KURUKSHETRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK WILL HAVE TO B E CONSIDERED PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE SAID ACCO UNT WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEPOSITING S ALE PROCEEDS OF SUGAR CANE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOWHERE DENI ED THAT ASSESSEE WAS OWNING 275 ACRES OF LAND IN WHICH AGRI CULTURAL OPERATIONS WERE CONDUCTED. EVEN THE SOURCE OF DEPO SIT IN ACCOUNT NO. 5583 OF KURUKSHETRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK HA D NOT BEEN DOUBTED. THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT DENY THE SOURCES SIMPLY BY SAYING THAT THERE IS A GAP OF MORE THAN O NE MONTH IN THE WITHDRAWAL OF CASH FROM ONE BANK AND DEPOSIT IN ANO THER IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DOUBT THE SOURCES. THERE CAN BE VARI OUS REASONS FOR SUCH A GAP AND THE GAP OF 1 MONTH IS NOT A LARGE GAP SO AS TO RAISE SUSPICION. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SET AS IDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 16, 50,000/-. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 13 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,2013. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (T.R.SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 13 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR,ITAT,CHD.