ITO, BALOTRA V. Smt. Chhagani Devi, BARMER

ITA 60/JODH/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 6023314 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 22-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 31-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N A JOSHI
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Business income; Assessment record
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL : JODHPUR BENCH : JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA NO. 60 /JODH/2014 (A.Y. 200 9 - 1 0 ) ITO , WARD, VS. SMT. CHHAGANI DEVI, BALOTRA . W/O SHRI POKAR RAM , SARDARPURA, MOKALSAR, DISTT BARMER (RAJ.) . PAN NO. AVNPD 4732 E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AMIT KOTHARI . DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI N.A. JOSHI - D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 22 / 0 5 /201 4 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 /0 7 /201 4 . O R D E R PER N.K. SAINI, A.M TH IS IS AN APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 2 9 / 11 /2013 OF L D . CIT(A), J ODHPUR . THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL: UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN 1. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 15,46,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE I.T. ACT IGNORING THE FACTS THAT RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED FIRST TIME AND CAPITAL BALANCE WAS SHOWN AT RS. 2 23,73,542/ - WHEREAS RETAIL BUSINESS IS TOO SMALL TO JUSTIFY SUCH HUGE DEPOSITS. 2. DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS ESTIMATING PROFIT @ 5% AS PER THE PROVISION OF SEC. 44AF AND ADDITION OF RS. 1,76,400/ - IGNORING THE FACTS DISCUSSED BY THE AO. THAT THE APPELLANT RESERVES ITS RIGHT TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER THE GROUND OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD. 2 THE FIRST ISSUE VIDE GROUND NO. 1 RELATES TO THE DE LETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 15,46 ,000/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 3. FACTS RELATING TO THIS ISSUE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED, NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED RS. 35,28,000 / - IN CASH IN HER SAVING BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH SBBJ, MOKALSAR BRANCH. THE CASH SO DEPOSITED WAS WITHDRAWN IMMEDIATELY THROUGH SELF CHEQUE . THE OPENING BALANCE IN THIS ACCOUNT AS ON 01/04/2008 WAS AT RS. 41,228/ - AND THE FIRST ENTRY IN THIS ACCOUNT WAS OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 2,00,000/ - ON 14/10/2008. THE CLOSING BALANCE AS ON 31/03/2009 WAS AT RS. 12,947/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE TOTAL TURNOVER FROM BUSINESS OF BARDANA WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 17,27,600/ - ONLY , AND ACCORDINGLY , HE ISSUED A SHOW - CAUSE NOTICE REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF SUCH HUGE CASH DEPOSIT . 3 THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE SOURCE OF INCOME WAS AGRICULTURAL INCOME, INCOME FROM RETAIL BUSINESS AND INTEREST INCOME. THE ASSESSEE FILED CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION AND PRECEDING TWO YEARS TO SHOW THAT SHE HAD SUFFICIENT FUND S TO COVER THE PEAK DEPOSIT OF RS. 15,46,000/ - REFLECTED IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT APART FROM DOING RETAIL BUSINESS OF OLD BARDANA , SHE HAD TAKEN LAND OF SHRI MANOHAR SINGH AND SHRI JET H U SINGH ON RENT FOR FIVE YEARS BACK AND ALSO OWNED HERSELF LAND MEASURING 14 BIGHA AND 18 BISWAS , AS A RESULT OF WHICH , SHE WAS HAVING AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 5,00,000/ - PER YEAR . THE ASSESSEE FILED AFFIDAVITS OF THOS E TWO PERSONS ALONG WITH SUPPORTING GIRDAWARI REPORTS . SHE ALSO FILED AFFIDAVITS OF SOME PERSONS TO WHOM SHE LENT MONEY AND RECEIVED THE SAME BACK DURING THE YEAR . THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE FIRST TIME AND CAPITAL BALANCE SHOWN AT RS. 23,73,542/ - AS ON 01/04/2009 WAS UNBELIEVABLE. HE OBSERVED THAT RETAIL BUSINESS WAS TOO SMALL TO JUSTIFY HUGE DEPOSITS . HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THOUGH THE TWO PERSONS FROM WHOM LAND WAS TAKEN ON RENT HAVE ACCEPTED THAT THEIR LAND WAS CULTIVATED ON RENT BY THE ASSESSEE , BUT THEY COULD NOT STATE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF THAT YEAR AND THEIR SHARE , IN 4 CLEAR MONETARY TERMS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT THOUGH GIRDAWARI REPORT HAD SHOWN SUFFICIENT AGRICULTURE CROPS BUT NO AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAD BEEN DECLARED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION A ND RECEIPTS OF SALE OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE OF EARLIER YEARS. AS REGARDS LOAN TO VARIOUS PERSONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOTED THAT HUGE CAPITAL AND BALANCE SHEET SHOWING DEBTORS OF RS. 16.25 LACS WAS FILED FOR THE FIRST TIME ONLY TO SUBSTANTIATE THE THE ORY OF MONEY ROTATION AND THE AFFIDAVITS FROM SUCH DEBTORS WERE ONLY SELF SERVING DOCUMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO FOUND THAT WHEN E N QU I RED FROM ONE SUCH PERSON, NO IN AND OUT DETAILS OF LOAN COULD BE STATED BY THIS PERSON. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE BANK DEPOSITS AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED THE PEAK AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT I.E. RS. 15,46,000/ - AS ASSESSEES INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE S. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES CAPITAL ACCOUNT , FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER , CLEARLY EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF INCOME AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT CONTROVERTED THE CORRECTNESS OF CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET SUBMITTED FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS. IT WAS FU RTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNED AGRICULTURAL LAND MEASURING 14 BIGHA 18 BISWA AND BESIDES THIS , HE HAD TAKEN AGRICULTURE LANDS FROM SHRI MANOHAR SINGH 5 AND SHRI JETHU SINGH ON RENT FOR AGRICULTURE PURPOSES FIVE YEARS BACK AND TH E AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT ON THOSE LAND FETCH ED INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS. 5 LAC PER YEAR. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVITS AND GIRDAWARI REPORTS WERE NEITHER CONTROVERTED NOR DISAPPROVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD AGRICULTUR E PRODUCE BOTH THROUGH ADATIA IN MANDIS AS WELL AS LOCALLY AT SITE I.E. ON AGRICULTURE LAND ITSELF. IT WAS STATED THAT THE PROOF OF SALE IN MANDIS WAS AVAILABLE AND SUPPORTING RECEIPTS WERE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED AN INCOME OF RS. 86,380/ - FROM RETAIL BUSINESS OF OLD BAR DANA AND HE HAD LENT MONEY TO VARIOUS PERSONS FROM TIME TO TIME AND EARNED INTEREST INCOME THEREON. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE DETAILS OF LOANS AND ADVANCES AMOUNTING TO RS. 16,25,667/ - AS ON 31/03/2009 ALONG WITH AFFIDAVITS FROM SEVEN LOANEES CONFIRMED THIS FACT THAT ALL THE LOANEES RECEIVED LOAN FROM THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT RECOVERY OF LOANS FROM LOANEES W AS IN CASH AND THE SAME WAS DEPOSITED IN SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT. R EL I A NCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: - 1. MEHTA PARIKH AND CO. VS. CIT [30 ITR 181 SC] 2. SOHANLAL GUPTA VS. CIT [33 ITR 786 ALL] 6 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNED AGRICULTURAL LAND MEASURING 14 BIGHA 18 BISWA ON WHICH THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES WERE BEING CARRIED OUT IN THE PRECEDING YEARS AND THE GIRDAWARI REPORT ALSO CONFIRMED THIS FACT. LD. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN AGRICULTURE LAND FROM SHRI MANOHAR SINGH AND SHRI JETHU SINGH ON RENT ON WHICH ALSO, THE AGRICULTUR AL ACTIVITIES WERE BEING CARRIED OUT IN THE PRECEDING YEARS AND BOT H SHRI MANOHAR SINGH AND SHRI JETHU SINGH CONFIRMED THIS FACT IN THEIR AFFIDAVITS. LD. CIT(A) CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT ALL THE FACTS WERE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM OR WITHOUT GIVING ANY PROPER FINDINGS, HE REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME . THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER GOT THE MATTER ENQUIRED THROUGH INSPECTOR AND BOTH THE PERSONS I.E. SHRI MANOHAR SINGH AND SHRI JETHU SINGH HAD CONFIRMED THAT THEY HAD GIVEN THEIR LANDS TO THE ASSESSEE FOR RAISING CROPS FOR FIVE YEARS AND THEY HAD STATED THAT THEY P ICKED 25% TO 30% OF PRODUCE AT THE TIME OF HARVESTING . THE LD. CIT(A) POINTED OUT THAT SHRI JETHU SINGH HAD GIVEN HIS ENTIRE LAND HOLDING OF 136 BIGHA TO THE ASSESSEE ON RENT AND SHRI MANOHAR SINGH HAD 7 CONFIRMED THAT HE OWNED 222 BIGHAS OF LAND WHICH WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR AGRICU L T U RE AND NO FURTHER ENQUIRY HAD BEEN CONDUCTED TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESS EES CLAIM OR THE STATEMENT OF THE ABOVE NAMED PERSONS OR GIRDAWARI REPORT SHOWING RAISING OF CROPS ON SUCH LAND WERE FALSE OR UNRELIABLE . THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS A CONTRADICTION IN THE ASSESSEES C L AIM AND LAND OWNER S CONFIRMATIONS , TH EREFORE, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRECEDING YEARS PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD SUCCESSFULLY PROVED HER CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WITH THE EVIDENCES WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE LIST OF 19 SUNDRY DEBTORS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER , CONFIRMING THAT THEY HAD RECEIVED LO ANS FROM THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONDUCTED ENQUIRY ONLY FROM ONE SHRI PUKHRAJ THROUGH INSPECTOR , H E HAD CONFIRMED OF RECEIVING LOAN FROM THE ASSESSEE FROM TIME TO TIME DURING THE YEAR AND STATED THAT AS ON 31/03/2009 , THE OUTSTANDING LOAN A MOUNTED TO RS. 1,00,000/ - , BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT REFUTING THE SAME, HAD REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE . THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED HER PRIMARY ONUS BY FILING VARIOUS EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF HER CLAIM AND 8 THEREFORE, HER CONTENTION THAT PART OF DEPOSITS IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WERE OUT OF RECOVERIES OF LOAN AND INTEREST INCOME THEREON COULD NOT BE REJECTED WITHOUT BRINGING IRREFUTABLE COUNTER EVIDENCES ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS ENGAGED IN RETAIL BUSINESS OF OLD BARDANA HAVING TOTAL TURNOVER OF RS. 17,27,600/ - ON WHICH INCOME OF RS. 86,380/ - WAS SHOWN . THE SAID TURNOVER WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WAS SUFFICIENT TO COVER RS. 15,46,000/ - BEING ADDITION MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME . THEREFORE, THE SAME WAS TO BE TREATED AS SOURCE OF DEPOSITS MADE IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT PRIOR TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N , THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING ANY INCOME WHICH WAS TAXABLE , S O, THERE WAS NO NEED TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME AND AS SUCH THE ASSESSING OFFICERS CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR PREVIOUS YEAR WAS NOT RELEVANT. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THOUGH THE BUSINESS OF BARDANA YIELDED NOT A VERY HUGE INCOME, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT MA K E DEPOSIT OUT OF THIS INCOME , F URTHER TWO PERSONS CATEGORICALLY ACCEPTED TO HAVE GIVEN THEIR RESPECTIVE LAND TO THE ASSE SSEE FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE FOR LAST FIVE YEARS AND THE EVIDENCES REVEALED THAT THOSE LANDS WERE MOSTLY IRRIGATED AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES WERE BEING CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE . 9 THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA D FAILED TO PROVE THAT ON THOSE LANDS, NO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES WERE CARRIED OUT IN THE PAST OR SUBSEQUENT YEAR. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE AFFIDAVITS OF FEW OF SUNDRY DEBTORS AS SELF SERVING DOCUMENTS , YET HE F A ILED TO CONDUCT ANY ENQUIRY TO REFUTE THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVITS. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT AVAILABLE CASH FROM EXPLAINED SOURCES WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN HER SAVING BANK ACCOUNT . THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 15,46,600/ - . NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL. 6 . LEARNED D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND REITERATED THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28/12/2011 . 7 . IN HIS RIVAL SU BMISSIONS, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) . 8 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE , IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOUBTED THE PEAK DEPOSITS IN 10 THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS. 15,4 6,000/ - AND TREATED THE SAME AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . IN THE PRESENT CASE , THE T OTAL TURNOVER FROM OLD BARDANA BUSINESS WAS AT RS. 17,27,600/ - AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT EARNING AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM THE AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNED BY HER AND TAKEN ON RENT FROM SHRI MANOHAR SINGH AND SHRI JETHU SINGH. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT . IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DO NOT SEE ANY VALID GROUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 9 . THE NEXT ISSUE VIDE GROUND NO . 2 RELATES TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 1,76,400/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 10 . FACTS RELATING TO THIS ISSUE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ISSUED A SHOW - CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE AMOUNT OF RS. 35,28,000/ - DEPOSITED IN HER BANK ACCOUNT ON VARIOUS DATES , MAY NOT BE TREATED AS RECEIPTS/TURNOVER OF HER BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND TREATED THE DEPOSITS OF 11 RS. 35,28,000/ - AS RECEIPTS OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS AND ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT BY APPLYING THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 5% U/S 44AF OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT IN SHORT) WHICH RESULTED INTO THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,76,400/ - . 11 . BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,76,400/ - . IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RIGHTLY SHOWN INCOME OF RS. 86 ,380/ - U/S 44AF OF THE ACT . 12. THE LEARNED CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TREATED THE WHOLE DEPOSITS OF RS. 35,28,000/ - AS BUSINESS RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND APPLIED 5% RATE AS PER SEC. 44AF OF THE ACT TO CALCULATE THE PROFIT , BUT THE SAID ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS AMBIGUITY AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS BECAUSE ON THE ONE HAND, HE HAD TREA TED THO SE DEPO S ITS AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED THE PEAK AMOU NT. ON THE OTHER HAND , HE WAS TREATING THE ENTIRE DEPOSITS AS BUSINESS RECEIPTS. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD EXAMINED MEMORANDUM DIARY AND BILLS BUT HAD NOT FOUND ANYTHING TO SUGGEST THAT TURNOVER DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CORRECT U/S 44AF OF THE ACT . THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO REASON FOR 12 THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,76,400/ - . ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DELETED. NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL. 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE , IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE ENTIRE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AS THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSE ES BUSINESS. ALTHOUGH, DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WERE FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES I.E. RECOVERY FROM THE DEBTORS, DEPOSITS FROM THE SALE OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE ETC. IN THE PRESENT CASE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUBSTAN TIATE THAT THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE FROM OLD BARDANA BUSINESS WAS MORE THAN RS. 17,26,600/ - WHICH WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE . THEREFORE, THE BUSINESS INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 86,380/ - U/S 44AF OF THE ACT WAS TO BE ACCEPTED INSTEAD OF THE IMAGINARY ADDITION OF RS. 1,76,400/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . THEREFORE, T HE LD. CIT(A) RIGHTLY DELETED THE SAID ADDITION . IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 13 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED . ( ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 21 ST JULY , 201 4) . SD/ - SD/ - ( HARI OM MARATHA ) (N.K.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 21 ST JULY , 201 4 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE LD. CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE D.R ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, JODHPUR .