Ashok Kumar Singh Bhadauria, New Delhi V. ITO, Ward-32(5), New Delhi

ITA 6036/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7700 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 20-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L ANURAGI
• Keywords: Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings; Capital expenditure; Borrowed satisfaction; Set aside
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.6036/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 ASHOK KUMAR SINGH BAHADAURIA, X-26, HAUZ KHAS, NEW DELHI -1100017 PAN NO.AAHPB3067B VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 32 (5), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. NEERAJ MANGLA, CA RESPONDENT BY SH. S. L. ANURAGI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 03/07/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24/07/2019 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 17.07.2018 OF THE CIT(A)-11, NEW DELHI RELATING TO A. Y. 2010-11. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE AO HAD REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.147 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF A IR INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSIT S OF RS.60,55,000/- IN HIS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS FOUND BY THE AO F ROM THE BANK STATEMENTS THAT THE TOTAL CASH DEPOSITS AMOUNT ED TO RS .34,20,000/-DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. TH E AO PAGE | 2 ASKED THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT S AND THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THERE WAS AN OPENING CASH B ALANCE AS ON 01.04.2009 OF RS.10,82,297/- AND AGRICULTURE INC OME OF RS. 9,00,500/-. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED THE CASH FLOW S TATEMENT IN WHICH IT WAS SHOWN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN RS. 23,55,000/- FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE AO DID NOT G IVE THE BENEFIT OF OPENING CASH BALANCE OF RS. 10,82,297/- AND REDREW THE CASH FLOW IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AFTER TREATI NG SOME OF THE ENTRIES OF CASH DEPOSITS AS EXPLAINED THE AO TREATE D CASH DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS. 13,13,000/- AS UNEXPLAINE D. 3. BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE APART FROM CHALLENGIN G THE ADDITION ON MERIT CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE RE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT SATISF IED WITH THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE ON BOTH THE ISSU ES. SO FAR AS THE GROUND CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS ARE CONCERNED, HE DECIDED THE SAME AGAI NST THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 5.1 THE AO HAD REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MADE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 60,55,000/- IN HIS SAVINGS BAN K ACCOUNT AND THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2010-11. THE AR HAS CHALLENGED THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BY STATING THAT THE ACTUAL CASH DEPOSITS AMOUNTED TO RS. 34,22,000/- AND THE APPELLANT HAS DULY FLED TH E RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT ON 26.07.2010. IN V IEW OF THIS, IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS PAGE | 3 BASED ON INCORRECT INFORMATION AND THEREFORE, THE REO PENING PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE QUASHED. A PERUSAL OF THE REAS ONS RECORDED BY THE AO SHOWS THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS DONE WITH RESPECT TO THE OTHER PAN H ELD BY THE APPELLANT WHICH IS AKOPB2313B AND THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS BEING FILED BY THE APPELLANT USING THE PAN AAHPB 3067B. SINCE THE AO HAD INFORMATION RELATED TO THE OTHER PAN NOT BEING USED BY THE APPELLANT FOR FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME AND IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE APPELLANT TO SURRENDER THE DUPLICATE PAN, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE AO HAD REOPENED THE ASSESSMEN T BASED ON WRONG INFORMATION. THE AO HAD DONE DUE VERIF ICATION WITH RESPECT TO THE OTHER PAN AND HAD FOUND THAT NO R ETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED FOR THAT PAN. IN VIEW OF THIS, I D ONT FIND ANY REASON TO FIND FAULT WITH THE REOPENING PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4. SO FAR AS THE ADDITION ON MERIT IS CONCERNED HE ALSO DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUN D THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE CA SH DEPOSITS AND CASH WITHDRAWALS. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) READS AS UNDER :- 4.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE AR. THE AR HAS CONTENDED THA T THE OPENING CASH BALANCE OF RS. 10,82,297/-. IS DULY SHOWN IN TH E BALANCE SHEET ON 31.03.2009 AS CLOSING BALANCE AND HAS FILED A COP Y OF THE SAME. THE AR HAS FURTHER FURNISHED THE COPIES OF BANK STAT EMENT AND THE DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS WITH RESPECT T O SOME OF THE ENTRIES WHICH HAVE BEEN TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED BY TH E AO. PAGE | 4 4.2.1 HOWEVER, THE AR HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY DIR ECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE CASH WITHDRAWALS AND THE CASH DEPOSITS. HE IS AT LOSS OF WORDS /ARGUMENTS WHEN ASKED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE CASH WITHDRAWALS MIGHT HAVE BEEN USED BY THE AO HAD REOPEN ED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF AIR I NFORMATION THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MADE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 60,55,00 0/- IN HIS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT AND THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2010-11. THE AR HAS CHALLENGED THE RE OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BY STATING THAT THE ACTUAL CASH DEPOSITS AMOUNTED TO RS. 34,22,000/- AND THE APPELLANT HAS DULY FILED THE RETU RN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT ON 26.07.2010. IN VIEW OF THI S, IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS BASED ON IN CORRECT INFORMATION AND THEREFORE, THE REOPENING PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE QUASHED. A PERUSAL OF THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO SHOWS THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS DONE WITH RESPEC T TO THE OTHER PAN HELD BY THE APPELLANT WHICH IS AKOPB2313B AND TH E RETURN OF INCOME WAS BEING FILED BY THE APPELLANT USING THE PA N AAHPB3067B. SINCE THE AO HAD INFORMATION RELATED TO THE OTHER PAN NOT BEING USED BY THE APPELLANT FOR FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME AND IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE APPELLANT TO SURRENDER THE DUPLIC ATE PAN, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE AO HAD REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BASED ON WRONG INFORMATION. THE AO HAD DONE DUE VERIFICATION W ITH RESPECT TO THE OTHER PAN. AND HAD FOUND THAT NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED FOR THAT PAN. IN VIEW OF THIS, I DONT FIND ANY REASON TO FIND FAULT WITH THE REOPENING PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING FOLLOWING GRO UNDS :- PAGE | 5 1. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 147 R.W.S. 143 (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND SUBSEQUENTLY UPHELD BY LD. CIT(A) IS PERVERSE TO LAW AND TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE BECAUS E OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN A MECHANICAL MANNER ONLY ON BORROWED INFORMATION REGARDING CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 60,55,000/- WITHOUT VERIFICATION OF THE SAME DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 34,20,000/- ONLY. 2. THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 13,13,000/- MADE BY THE L D. AO AND UPHELD BY LD. CIT(A) IS NOT TENABLE UNDER THE LAW B ECAUSE OF BEING MADE AND UPHELD ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE EARLIER CASH WITHDRAWALS WERE CONSUMED AND NOT AVAILABLE FOR SUBSEQUENT CASH DEPOSITS. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN FACTS OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 13,13,000/- MADE BY T HE LD. AO ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE CASH DEP OSITS AND WITHDRAWALS WAS NOT EXPLAINED DESPITE THE FACT THAT COPIES OF BANK STATEMENT AND DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT S WAS DULY FILED. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN FACTS OF THE CASE IN HOLDING THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS FOR F.Y. 2008-09 T O SELF SERVING DOCUMENTS AND REJECTING THE CLAIM OF OPENING CASH B ALANCE OF RS. 10,82,297/-, ON INCORRECT PRESUMPTION THAT THE AMOU NT OF CASH WAS ENTERED AS NIL IN ITR DESPITE THE EVIDENT FACT TH AT THE PARTICULARS OF STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS WERE NOT ENTERED IN THE ITR . THAT THE APPELLANT ASSAILS HIS RIGHT TO AMEND, ALTE R, CHANGE ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL OR TAKE ANY FURTHER GROUND AT ANY TIME EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF INSTANT APPEAL. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY CHALL ENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE VALIDITY OF R EASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT PAGE | 6 WAS MADE ON SUSPICION AND WITHOUT VERIFICATION OF I NFORMATION RECEIVED. HE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER AIR INFORMATION RECEIVED THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.60,55,000/- WH EREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY DEPOSITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.34, 20,000/-. THEREFORE, THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN DONE ON INCORRECT FACTS IN A MECHANICAL MANNER AND WITHOUT VERIFICATION OF FACTS, THEREFORE, THE REOPENING IS BAD IN LAW. 7. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE REOPENING HAS BEEN MADE ON BORROWED SATISFACTION WHICH CAN LEAD TO REASONS TO SUSPECT BUT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS REASONS TO BELIEF. THERE WA S NO TANGIBLE OR CREDIBLE MATERIAL TO FORM A REASON TO BELIEVE TH AT CASH DEPOSIT REPRESENTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE CAN BE N UMBER OF SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. RELY ING ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS HE SUBMITTED THAT THE REOPENING IS BAD IN LAW AND SHOULD BE QUASHED. 1. MUNNI DEVI VS. ITO REWARI, ITA NO.3534/DEL/2014 2. HARMEET SINGH VS. ITO, DELHI ITA NO.1939/DEL/2016 3. BIR BAHADUR SINGH, 68 SOT 197 4. PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN VS. ITO, ITA NO.1331/DEL/2015 5. SH. MAHAVIR PRASAD VS. ITO REWARI, ITA NO.924/DEL/2 015 8. SO FAR AS THE MERIT OF THE CASE IS CONCERNED HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS APPEALS PROCEEDINGS HAD FURNISHED THE DA TE WISE DETAILS OF CASH WITHDRAWN AND CASH DEPOSIT. HOWEVER , IT WAS PAGE | 7 PRESUMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE CASH WIT HDRAWN ON EARLIER DATES WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSUMED PRIOR TO SUB SEQUENT WITHDRAWAL AND THEREFORE, THE BENEFIT OF THE SAME C ANNOT BE ALLOWED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SOLELY BASED UPON SURMISES AND PRESUMPTIONS AND WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE CONTRARY TO T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS BEFORE THE CIT (A) HAS DULY EXPLAINED THE NEXUS OF CASH IN HAND, DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND ITS UTILIZATION. 9. SO FAR AS THE NON-ACCEPTANCE OF THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS OF EARLIER YEARS IS CONCERNED HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ITR FOR A. Y. 2009-10 THERE WAS NO COLUMN TO ENTER THE DETAILS OF STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS OF THE ASSESSEE. ONLY BALANCE SHEET OF P ROPRIETARY BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTERED IN THE SAID IT R FORM. SINCE IN THE INSTANT CASE THE OPENING CASH IN HAND WAS PA RT OF PERSONAL ASSETS APPEARING IN STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS, THE SAME COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REPORTED IN SAID COLUMN. HE AC CORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION ON MERIT IS ALSO NOT SU STAINABLE. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY TH E ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS :- 1) CIT VS. KULWANT RAI 291 TIR 36 (DELHI) 2) DCIT VS. MANISH KUMAR AGARWAL ITA NO.3301/DEL/2012 10. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON BOTH THE ISSUES. HE SUBMITTED THAT WH EN THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING TWO PAN NUMBERS AND SINCE THE A SSESSING PAGE | 8 OFFICER HAD INFORMATION RELATED TO THE OTHER PAN NO T BEING USED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR FILING OF THE RETURN AND WHEN T HERE WERE HUGE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RIGHTLY INITIATED THE PROCEED INGS U/S. 147 OF THE IT ACT. SO FAR AS THE MERIT OF THE ADDITION IS CONCERNED THE LD. DR HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ). 11. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. I HAVE ALSO C ONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED ON BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. I FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ON THE BASIS OF AIR INF ORMATION RECEIVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH AMOUN TING TO RS.60,55,000/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT REOPENED THE AS SESSMENT. WHILE DOING SO HE HAD OBSERVED THAT NO RETURN HAS B EEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A. Y.2010-11 WHICH IS DISCERNABLE FROM THE COPY OF THE REASONS PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGES 4&5. IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING TWO P AN NUMBERS, THE REASON OF WHICH IS BEST KNOWN TO THE A SSESSEE. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD INFORMATION RELATED TO THE OTHER PAN NUMBER NOT BEING USED BY ASSESSEE FOR FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME, AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SURRENDERED THE DUPLICATE PAN, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BASED ON WRONG INFO RMATION. I FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE INSTANT CASE HAD DONE DUE VERIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO THE PAN NUMBER AND HAD FOUND THAT NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED IN THAT PAN. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED REASONING GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) WHILE PAGE | 9 UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, I DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS UPHELD. THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ESPECIA LLY WHEN IN NON OF THE CASES, THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING TWO PAN N UMBERS. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE OF R EOPENING IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 12. SO FAR AS THE ADDITION ON MERIT IS CONCERNED I FIND AS AGAINST THE INFORMATION RECEIVED OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.60,55,000/-, IT WAS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY DEPOSITED CASH OF RS.34,20,00 0/-. I FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED AN AMOUNT OF RS.20,0 7,000/- AND TREATED THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.13,13,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED. IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD WHY THERE IS A D IFFERENCE OF RS.1,00,000/- BETWEEN THE ACTUAL DIFFERENCE OF RS.1 4,13,000/- AND ADDITION MADE AT RS.13,13,000/-. FROM THE VARI OUS DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAPER BOOK I FIND THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED INCOME OF RS.23,48,906/- WHICH INCLUDE S AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.4,39,876/-. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE CURRENT YEAR HAS DECLARED AN INCOME OF RS.26,79,460 /- AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION CHAPTER VI-A. I FIND THE ASSESSE E DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS ALSO FILED THE FOLLOWING CASH FLOW STATEMENT TO SUBSTANTIATE THE DEPOSIT OF CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH IS AS UNDER :- PAGE | 10 PARTICULARS CASH FLOW PARTICULARS CASH OUTFLOW OPENING CASH BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2009 1,082,297 CASH DEPOSITED DURING THE YEAR WITHDRAWAL FROM BANK : OBC DEFENCE COLONY 3,420,000 OBC DEFENCE COLONY 2,355,000 FEDERAL BANK 2,000 OBC HAUZ KHAS 24,000 DRAWINGS MADE DURING THE YEAR 1,80,000 AGRICULTURAL INCOME DURING THE YEAR 9,00,500 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE EXPENSES MADE DURING THE YEAR 87,710 OTHER RECEIPTS 12,500 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES 4,645 TOTAL CASH INFLOW DURING THE YEAR 4,374,297 TOTAL CASH FLOW DURING THE YEAR 3,694,355 CLOSING BALANCE OF CASH IN HAND AS ON 31.03.2010 67 9,942 13. I FIND THE BASIS OF REJECTION OF THE ABOVE CASH FLOW STATEMENT IS DUE TO NON CONSIDERATION OF THE OPENIN G CASH BALANCE AND NON CONSIDERATION OF THE EARLIER CASH W ITHDRAWALS WHICH WERE UTILIZED AGAIN FOR DEPOSIT IN THE BANK A CCOUNT. I FIND FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAD PRESUMED THAT THE EARLIER CASH WITHDRAWALS WERE CON SUMED FOR HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES AND NOT AVAILABLE FOR RE-DEPOSI T. THIS, IN MY OPINION, CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN ABSENCE OF ANY EV IDENCE WITH THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INFACT CONSUMED SUCH H UGE CASH AND INCURRED HUGE EXPENDITURE FOR SOME OTHER PURPOS E SUCH AS ANY CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OR FOR SOME MARRIAGE FUNCTI ON IN THE FAMILY ETC. FURTHER WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWING H UGE INCOME AND ALSO HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE PRECEDIN G YEARS AS WELL AS DURING THE CURRENT YEAR, THEREFORE, NON CON SIDERATION OF THE OPENING CASH BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2009 IN MY OPI NION IS ALSO INCORRECT. SO FAR AS THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT IS CONCERNED THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE OPENING BALANCE AT RS.10 ,82,297/- PAGE | 11 AND CLOSING CASH BALANCE AT RS.6,79,942/-. EVEN IF THE OPENING CASH BALANCE AT RS.10,82,297/-IS CONSIDERED TO BE H IGHER, HOWEVER, THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS NIL. IF A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF OPENING CASH BALANCE OF 50% OF THE ABOVE AMOUNT IS CONSIDERED AND THE WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK MADE EA RLIER IS CONSIDERED AS AVAILABLE FOR REDEPOSIT IN THE BANK A CCOUNT THEN ALSO THERE APPEARS TO BE SUFFICIENT CASH BALANCE AV AILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IN VIEW O F THE ABOVE DISCUSSION I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT NO A DDITION IS CALLED FOR ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT MADE IN THE B ANK ACCOUNT AND THE ASSESSEE IN MY OPINION HAS SUCCESSFULLY EXP LAINED THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. I, THER EFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24.07.2019. SD/- (R.K PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *NEHA* DATE:- 24 .07.2019 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI PAGE | 12 DATE OF DICTATION DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS /PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/ PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WE BSITE OF ITAT 24.07.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. THE DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGIST RAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER