SHRI PAWAN KUMAR MEENA, KOTA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-2, KOTA

ITA 615/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8114 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VARINDAR MEHTA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Tangible material; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 147; 69

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENC HE-A JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRA M SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 615/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009-10 PAWAN KUMAR MEENA 720, BALAJI NAGAR NEAR RANGBADI, KOTA CUKE VS. ITO, WARD-1(2), KOTA LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AITPM6382L VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VINOD GUPTA (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI VARINDAR MEHTA (CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 30/01/2019 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15/04/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), KOTA DATED 30.01.2018 FOR AY 2009-10 WHEREIN THE AS SESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 250/147/14 8 IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS BEING AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND FOR MANY MORE OTHER REASONS. 2. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, LD. CIT(A) HA S ERRED BY SUSTAINING THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDING U/S 147/148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDING IS ILLEGAL AND U NJUSTIFIED. 3. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, LD. AO HAS ER RED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 12,45,000/- BY TREATING CASH DEPOSI TED IN SAVINGS BANK ITA NO. 615/JP/2018 PAWAN KUMAR MEENA, KOTA VS. ITO, WARD-1(2), KOTA 2 ACCOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME U/S 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, FURTHER, CIT(A) HAS ERRED BY SUSTAINING THE SAME. THE ADDITI ON SUSTAINED IS UNJUSTIFIED, ILLEGAL OR EXCESSIVE. 4. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, LD. AO HAS ER RED BY NOT CONSIDERING THAT CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM BANK WAS AVA ILABLE FOR DEPOSITION OF CASH IN BANK ACCOUNT, FURTHER, CIT(A) ERRED BY N OT CONSIDERING THE SAME. 5. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. AO HA S ERRED BY DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT TO BE RS. 13,88,790/-. FURTHER, CIT(A) HAS ERRED BY CONFIRMING THE SAME. 6. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. AO HA S ERRED BY INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 271(1)( C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT P ROCEEDINGS U/S 147 WERE INITIATED IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THA T THERE WERE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 23,43,500/- IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT AND THE SAME WERE NOT VERIFIABLE AS THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS NOT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS 23,43,500 HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148, THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DECLAR ING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,43,790/- WHICH INCLUDES RS. 1,34,540/- AS BUS INESS INCOME U/S 44AF OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER GIVEN THE BENE FIT OF RS. 11,00,000/- SHOWN AS WITHDRAWALS IN THE PREVIOUS FINANCIAL YEAR HAS B ROUGHT TO TAX THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 12,45,000/- AS UNEXP LAINED INCOME U/S 69 OF THE ACT. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO. 615/JP/2018 PAWAN KUMAR MEENA, KOTA VS. ITO, WARD-1(2), KOTA 3 3. GROUND NO. 1 WAS NOT PRESSED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 4. IN GROUND NO. 2, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE O F HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT FROM THE PERUSAL OF REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148, IT CAN BE NOTED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED DUE TO CASH DEPOSITION OF RS. 23,43,50 0/- IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE REASONS SO RE CORDED, NEITHER BANK NAME NOR ACCOUNT NUMBER IN WHICH SUCH AMOUNT WAS DEPOSIT ED IS MENTIONED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE BASIS OF RE-OPENI NG OF CASE IS NON-FILING OF RETURN THEREFORE CASH DEPOSIT IS NOT VERIFIABLE. IN THIS REGARD, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE RETAIL BUSINES S OF BUILDING MATERIAL AND WAS NOT REQUIRED TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME AS HIS IN COME WAS BELOW TAXABLE INCOME. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPOSIT O F CASH ITSELF IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT DOES NOT ESTABLISH ANY LIV E NEXUS BETWEEN THE INFORMATION AND FORMATION OF BELIEF THAT IT REPRESE NTS INCOME AND, HENCE, THERE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTUM PER SE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT COULD NOT BE MADE A BASIS FOR HOLDING THE VIEW THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IT WAS SUB MITTED THAT THE AO HAS MERELY ACTED UPON THE AIR INFORMATION AND HAS NOT A PPLIED HIS OWN MIND NOR ANY EFFORTS WERE MADE TO VERIFY THE INFORMATION RAT HER HE ACTED IN A PURELY MECHANICAL MANNER. IN SUPPORT, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE VARIOUS CO-ORDINATE BENCH AND HIGH COURT DECISIONS. 5. PER CONTRA, LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE L OWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS WERE MADE IN THE S AVING BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE AO THUS HAS THE TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO FORM THE BELIEF THAT INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED TAX ATION. IT WAS SUBMITTED ITA NO. 615/JP/2018 PAWAN KUMAR MEENA, KOTA VS. ITO, WARD-1(2), KOTA 4 THAT THE FACTUM OF CASH DEPOSITS BEYOND A PRESCRIBE D THRESHOLD WHICH HAS TRIGGERED THE AUTOMATIC SHARING OF INFORMATION BY T HE BANK WITH THE AO THROUGH THE AIR IS CLEARLY A TANGIBLE PIECE OF INFO RMATION WHICH LINKED THE CASH DEPOSITS WITH THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH IS IN THE NAME OF AND OPERATED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WHICH IS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ONCE CASH IS FOUND DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT SUCH DEPOSITS BEL ONG TO THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT SUCH DEPOSI TS ARE OUT OF HIS REGULAR BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS AND/OR HAVE BEEN REPORTED IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. IN ABSENCE OF ANY RETURN OF INCOME SO FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE WHEREIN HE HAS DISCLOSED HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSING OF FICER IS WELL WITHIN HIS RIGHT AND JURISDICTION TO FORM A BELIEF THAT SUCH DEPOSIT S ARE IN NATURE OF INCOME WHICH HAS ESCAPED TAXATION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SUCH PRIMA FACIE BELIEF IS SUFFICIENT ENOUGH FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASSU ME JURISDICTION U/S 147 WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME. I T WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR CHALLENGING THE INITIATI ON OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 AS CONTENDED BY THE LD. AR. 6. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IT IS A CASE WHERE RETURN OF INCOME HAS N OT BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND PURSUANT TO NOTICE U/S 148, HE HAS FILED HIS RE TURN OF INCOME. PRIOR TO SUCH NOTICE U/S 148, THERE IS NO PAST HISTORY OF THE ASS ESSEE WHERE HE HAS FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME WHEREIN HE HAS DISCLOSED THE SAVIN GS BANK ACCOUNT. FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE MATTER WAS OPENED FOR THE REASON TH AT THERE ARE CASH DEPOSITS WORTH RS 23,43,500 IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WHICH HAVE ESCAPED TAXATION. IT IS THEREFORE A CASE OF ASSESSMENT AND NOT REASSE SSMENT AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 147, WHAT IS REQU IRED IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE ANY INCOME C HARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IT HAS ALSO BEEN PROVIDED IN EX PLANATION TO SECTION 147 ITA NO. 615/JP/2018 PAWAN KUMAR MEENA, KOTA VS. ITO, WARD-1(2), KOTA 5 THAT WHERE NO RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FURNISHED B Y THE ASSESSEE ALTHOUGH HIS TOTAL INCOME DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR EXCEEDED THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT WHICH IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO INCOME- TAX, IT WILL BE DEEMED TO BE A CASE WHERE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. O NCE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS 23,43,500 IS FOUND DEPOSITED IN ASSESSEES SAVING B ANK ACCOUNT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED TO THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, FORMATIO N OF A PRIMA FACIE BELIEF ON PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT SUCH DEPOSITS HA VE ESCAPED TAXATION CANNOT BE FAULTED. THERE IS SUFFICIENT MATERIAL IN POSSESS ION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN FORM OF CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT A ND THE FACTUM OF SUCH CASH DEPOSITS AND THE BANK ACCOUNT BELONGING TO THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BEFORE US. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND SUCH BA NK ACCOUNT THUS HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED TO THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THEREFO RE, THERE IS A SUFFICIENT NEXUS BETWEEN THE MATERIAL AND FORMATION OF BELIEF THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED TAXATION. THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD AR THAT THE WHOLE OF DEPOSITS CANNOT BE REGARDED AS INCOME AND THEREFORE THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION IS VITIATED UNDER LAW IS NOT CORRECT. TO OUR MIND, SO LONG AS THERE IS AN ELEMENT OF INCOME WHICH HAS ESCAPED TAXATION AND WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT WHICH IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX, THE SAME IS SUFFICI ENT ENOUGH TO UPHOLD THE JURISDICTION SO INVOKED BY THE AO U/S 147 OF THE AC T. AT THE STAGE OF ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 147, WHAT IS REQUIRE D IS FORMATION OF A PRIMA FACIE VIEW THAT CERTAIN INCOME WHICH FIND MENTION I N THE REASONS SO RECORDED HAS ESCAPED TAXATION AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS T HEREFORE NOT REQUIRED AT THAT STAGE TO FIRM UP HIS BELIEF IN TERMS OF EXACT QUANT UM OF INCOME WHICH HAS ESCAPED TAXATION. ONCE THE JURISDICTION IS ASSUMED , THE QUANTUM OF INCOME IS A MATTER OF EXAMINATION AND THE ASSESSEE WILL ALSO GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN HIS POSITION AND PROVIDE THE NECESSARY EXPL ANATION. THEREFORE, WE DONOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTI ON U/S 147 BY THE AO. THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD AR ARE DISTINGUISHA BLE AND ARE RENDERED IN THE ITA NO. 615/JP/2018 PAWAN KUMAR MEENA, KOTA VS. ITO, WARD-1(2), KOTA 6 CONTEXT OF PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND THEREFORE, D OESNT SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISM ISSED. 7. NOW COMING TO GROUND NOS. 3 AND 4 WHEREIN THE AS SESSEE HAS EFFECTIVELY CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS. 12.45 LACS ON MERITS BY TREATING CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED AND TAXABLE U/S 69 OF THE ACT. 8. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMIT TED THAT OUT OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 23,45,000/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 11 LACS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS AVAILABLE OUT O F CASH WITHDRAWALS IN MARCH, 2008 AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 12,45,0 00/- HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE AS SESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION, THERE WERE CASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 23,59,881/- WHICH HAVE NOT B EEN DENIED AND EVIDENT FROM THE BANK STATEMENT AND SAME HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN CASH FLOW STATEMENT SO SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CASH FLOW STATEME NT FROM BANK IS A FACTUAL STATEMENT AND NOT UNDER ANY DOUBT. OUT OF SAID WITH DRAWAL OF RS. 23,59,881/-, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED AMOUNT OF RS. 12.45 LACS HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED. THE LD. AO BASED UPON PRESUMPTION AS EVI DENT FROM HIS FINDINGS THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN UTILIZED THAT WITHDRAWAL HAS BEEN USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE AND OTHER NEEDS. THE LD. AO HAS NOT COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT EXPLANATION OFFERED IS FALSE RATHER HE CHOOSE TO PR OCEED WITH PRESUMPTION AND WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL OR BASIS. NO ALTERNATIVE USE H AVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE CONTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE THAT OUT OF THE CASH WITHDRAWALS, THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN RE-DEP OSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. IN SUPPORT, RELIANCE WA S PLACED ON THE VARIOUS CO- ORDINATE BENCH DECISIONS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A RETAIL BUSINESSMEN WHO HAS FILED HIS INCOME TAX RETURN U/S 44AF OF THE ACT AND ITA NO. 615/JP/2018 PAWAN KUMAR MEENA, KOTA VS. ITO, WARD-1(2), KOTA 7 THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT UNDER ANY OBLIGATION TO EXPLAIN EACH AND EVERY ENTRY OF THE BANK. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE HONB LE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT DECISION IN CASE OF CIT VS. SURINDER PAL ANAN D (ITA NO. 156 OF 2010, VIDE ORDER DATED 29.06.2010). IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALLEGED THAT CERTAIN PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO CER TAIN PERSONS/FIRMS THROUGH CHEQUE AND THESE ARE RELATED TO THE BUSINES S. EVEN OTHERWISE, EVEN FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT, IF WE LOOK AT ENTIRE TURNOVER AS RECEIVED IN CASH AND PURCHASES ALSO IN CASH, THE WITHDRAWAL IS AVAILABLE FOR RE-DEPOSITION. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A RETAIL TRA DER AND DOES NOT REQUIRE TO MAINTAIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE DEPOSITION AND WITH DRAWAL UTMOST CAN REFLECT SALE AND PURCHASE WHICH IS ALREADY PART OF THE DECL ARED TURNOVER. IN SUPPORT, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN CAS E OF CHITTAR SINGH GURJAR VS. ITO (ITA NO. 594/JP/2016 VIDE ORDER DATED 26.09.2016) AND IN CASE OF ITO VS. PUSHPENDRA KUAMR JAIN (ITA NO. 289/JP/2012 VIDE ORDER DATED 01.01.2016). 9. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE FINDING OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ADVANCING CONTRA DICTORY THEORIES. WHILE ON THE ONE HAND, HE HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME BAS ED ON TOTAL RECEIPTS OF RS. 26,04,500/- AND OFFERED PROFIT @ 5% U/S 44AD, O N THE OTHER HAND HE SEEKS TO GET RE-DEPOSITS CONSIDERED AGAINST THE CASH WITH DRAWAL WHEN, IN REALITY THESE WERE SEVERAL CHEQUES SHOWN AS ISSUED TO PARTI CULAR PERSONS AS HIGHLIGHTED BY THE AO IN HIS ORDER. FURTHER, ONCE T HERE ARE NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCES, A SELF PREPARED CASH BOOK COULD NOT BE A CCEPTED AS THE BASIS TO TREAT THE DEPOSITS AS EXPLAINED. UNDER THE CIRCUMST ANCES THE THEORY OF REINTRODUCTION OF THE CASH AGAIN AS THE EXPLANATION TO REDUCE THE UNEXPLAINED AMOUNT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 12,45,000/- BEING UNEXPLAINED INCOME SHOULD BE CONFIRMED. ITA NO. 615/JP/2018 PAWAN KUMAR MEENA, KOTA VS. ITO, WARD-1(2), KOTA 8 10. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT OUT OF DEPOSITS OF RS 23,45,000, DEPOSITS TO THE EXTENT OF RS 11 LACS HAS BEEN FOUND EXPLAINED AS MADE OUT OF WITHDRAWALS IN THE MONTH OF MARCH 2008. REGARDING THE REMAINING AMOUNT FOUND DEPOSIT ED, WE FIND THAT THE REVENUE HAS ACCEPTED THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE F ROM HIS BUSINESS OF SUPPLY OF BUILDING MATERIAL TO THE TUNE OF RS 26,04,540, T HEREFORE, THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS TO THE EXTENT OF RS 12,45,000 FOUND DEPOSI TED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT CAN REASONABLY BE HELD FROM SUCH BUSINESS AND THUS STAN D DULY EXPLAINED. REGARDING THE CHEQUE WITHDRAWALS/PAYMENTS MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE TO THE TUNE OF RS 14,46,384, WE FIND THAT THERE IS AN EQUIVALEN T AMOUNT OF CHEQUE DEPOSITS TO THE TUNE OF RS 14,60,241 IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHI CH AGAIN REASONABLY EXPLAIN SUCH CHEQUE PAYMENTS AS MADE OUT OF CHEQUE DEPOSITS . IN THE RESULT, WE HEREBY DELETE THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS 12,4 5,000 SO SUSTAINED BY THE LD CIT(A). IN THE RESULT, THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALL OWED. 11. GROUND NO. 5 IS GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH DOES NO T REQUIRE ANY SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. GROUND NO. 6 IS REGARDING INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE SAME IS NOT ARISING OUT OF THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15/04/2019. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 15/04/2019 * GANESH KR. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: ITA NO. 615/JP/2018 PAWAN KUMAR MEENA, KOTA VS. ITO, WARD-1(2), KOTA 9 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- PAWAN KUMAR MEENA, KOTA 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ITO, WARD-1(2), KOTA 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 615/JP/2018} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR