Shri Ashok S. Londhe, Pune V. ITO, Ward-4 (5), Pune

ITA 658/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1211 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 12-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B C MALAKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business income; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

] ]] ] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE , . . !, # $ BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM ITA NO.658/PN/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI ASHOK S. LONDHE, 419-A, 4 TH FLOOR, STERLING CENTRE, 11 MOLEDINA ROAD, PUNE 411 001. PAN : ABQPL7296Q . APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(5), PUNE. . RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI KISHOR PHADKE / DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI B. C. MALAKAR / DATE OF HEARING : 28.05.2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 19.08.2015 % / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE OR DER OF CIT(A)-II, PUNE DATED 29.10.2012 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-0 9 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II, PUNE ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED AO IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.31,90,00 0/- U/S 68 OF THE ITA, 1961. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II, PUNE ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS.31,90,000/- U/S 68 OF THE ITA, 1961; EVEN THO UGH THE APPELLANT HAD SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF T HE CASH DEPOSITS IN MAJORITY OF THE CASES. 3. THE LEARNED CLT(A)-II, PUNE ERRED ON FACTS AND I N LAW IN REJECTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE I.E. CONFIRMATIONS BY 74 CUSTOMERS TOWARDS ADVANCES FOR PLOTS OF LAND. HE 2 ITA NO.658/PN/2013 OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONFIRMATIONS OF 74 CU STOMERS FOR A FAIR ADJUDICATION PROCESS AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD/ MODIFY/ ALTER/ DELE TE ALL/ ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS A GAINST THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AT RS.31,90,000/-. 4. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE A SSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BUILDING CONTRACTOR, LAND DEVELOPER AND FILM PRODUCTION. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW-CAUSED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS AND SOURCES FOR DEPOSIT OF CASH OF RS.31,90 ,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH THE JAN SEVA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., NETAJI NAGAR BRANC H, PUNE. THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 09.11.2010 STATED THAT THE SAID CASH D EPOSITS IN JAN SEVA SAHAKARI BANK LTD. WERE OUT OF ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM THE CU STOMERS AGAINST THE BOOKING OF PLOTS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE COPIE S OF RECEIPTS ISSUED FOR THE ADVANCES RECEIVED ALONG WITH THE DETAILS OF EXPENDI TURES BOOKED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND THE DETAILS OF THE LAND PURCHASED WITH EVIDENCES. THE ASSESSEE, IN REPLY, SUBMITTED THE DETAILS ALONG WITH THE COPI ES OF STAMPED RECEIPT VOUCHERS BEARING SR. NO.71 TO 81, ALL DATED 09 TH DECEMBER, 2007, FOR THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED WITH THE NARRATION BEING CASH RECEIVED. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER, IN TURN, ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE DETAILS OF PLOTS BOOKED FOR WHICH THE CASH WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE PURCHASERS ALONG WITH LEDGER ACCOUNT EXTRACT OF PERSONS WHO HAVE BOOKED THE PLOTS AND FULL ADDRESSES OF THE PURCHASERS. THE SAID REQUISITION WAS ASKED AS PER ORDER-SHEET ENTRY DATE D 22.11.2010. ON THE SUBSEQUENT DATE OF HEARING, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED OTHER DETAILS, HOWEVER, NO DETAILS AS CALLED FOR VIDE ORDER-SHEET ENTRY DATED 22.11.2010 WERE SUBMITTED. THE ASSESSEE WAS FURTHER GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO FURNISH T HE REQUISITE DETAILS BUT THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CL AIM VIS--VIS THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, SINCE THE VOUCHERS PRODUCED WERE SR. NO.71 TO 81 AND FURTHER NO 3 ITA NO.658/PN/2013 IDENTIFICATION OF THE PERSONS WHO HAD ADVANCED THE MONEY HAD BEEN PROVED NOR THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS OR THE PLOT DETAILS WHICH HA VE BEEN BOOKED, WERE FILED. REJECTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS R EGARD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.31,90,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED WRITTE N SUBMISSIONS, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED UNDER PARA 3.1 AT PAGES 2 TO 5 OF THE AP PELLATE ORDER. IN THE SAID REPLY, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT BECAUSE OF INADEQUATE T IME ALLOWED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS, THE SAME COULD NOT BE FILED. IT WAS POINT ED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNTS REPRESENTED THE ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM THE PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS AND THE SAME COULD NOT BE TREATED AS CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE LIST OF ADDRESSES OF 74 PROSP ECTIVE PURCHASERS ALONG WITH THEIR CONFIRMATIONS SUPPORTING THE TOTAL ADVANCES R ECEIVED OF RS.27,77,500/- AND IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT SOME OF THE CONFIRMATI ONS WERE ALREADY FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT IT C OULD ONLY COLLECT CONFIRMATIONS TOTALING RS.4,12,500/- BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER . HOWEVER, SINCE THE BALANCE CONFIRMATIONS WERE NOW AVAILABLE, THE SAME MAY BE A DMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE CIT(A) FORWARDED THE SAID SUBMISSION S ALONG WITH ANNEXURE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLING FOR THE REMAND REPORT. I N TURN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED THE REMAND REPORT POINTING OUT THAT AMPLE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO EXPLA IN THE SOURCE AND EVIDENCE OF CASH DEPOSIT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVE THE CASH DEPOSIT. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT T HE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE ADMITTED. THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REPRODUCE D UNDER PARA 3.3 AT PAGE 6 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE FURNIS HED THE COUNTER COMMENTS WHICH ARE UNDER PARA 3.4 AT PAGES 6 TO 8 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. THE MAIN PLANK OF ARGUMENT BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS THAT THE SAID DETAIL S COULD NOT BE FURNISHED BEFORE 4 ITA NO.658/PN/2013 THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE ADDRESSES OF THE CUSTO MERS WERE NOT TRACEABLE AND THE SAID DATA COULD NOT BE COLLECTED AS ADEQUATE TI ME WAS NOT ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SECONDLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ERRED IN TREATING THESE ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM THE CUSTOMERS AS LOANS AND T HEREAFTER MAKING AN ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IN ORDER TO PROVE ITS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE EVIDENCE AS IT COULD COLLECT AND THE SAME SHOULD BE ADMITTED AND RELIED UPON TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED THAT CERTAIN ADVANCES WERE REFUNDED TO THE CUSTOMERS AND THE NEC ESSARY WITHDRAWALS WERE MADE FROM THE SAID BANK ITSELF AND THERE WAS NO MER IT IN ADDING THE SAME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED NUMBER OF NOTICES TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE AS SESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FURNISHED THE PART OF THE DETAILS AND NOT COMPLETE DETAILS BEFORE FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT. THE SUBSEQUENT A DDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO THE CONFIRMATION OF 74 PRO SPECTIVE BUYERS FOR SUM OF RS.27,77,500/- WERE FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFI CER, WHO HAD OBJECTED TO ITS ADMISSION. REFERRING TO THE POWERS FOR ADMISSION O F THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 (IN SHORT T HE RULES), THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE PRESENT CASE DOES NOT COME UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE SAID RULE AND HENCE THE REQUEST FOR THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL E VIDENCE WAS REJECTED. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT TI ME TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF THE CLAIM MADE BUT STILL THE SAME COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ENTIRE EXERCISE OF MAKING THE CLAIM OF ADVA NCES TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK WAS COLOURABLE TRANSACTIONS, WHICH WERE DIFFICULT TO BE BELIEVED. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PART OF PROPER PROOF AND EVIDENCE SO AS TO JUSTIFY THE CLAI M OF EXPLAINING THE CASH DEPOSIT BY WAY OF ADVANCES. THEREAFTER, THE CIT(A) REFERRE D TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE IT ACT AND SECTION 110 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT A ND UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5 ITA NO.658/PN/2013 6. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 7. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESS EE POINTED OUT THAT SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK WAS OUT OF THE ADVANCES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM DIFFERENT PERSONS FOR PURCHASE OF PLOTS IN REGULAR COURSE OF CARRYING ON OF ITS BUSINESS. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR TH E ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK AND PO INTED OUT THAT BECAUSE THE SAID ALLOTMENT OF PLOTS WAS CANCELLED, IT WAS DIFFICULT TO GET THE REQUISITE DETAILS FROM THE SAID PARTIES. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FO R THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE LIST OF THE SAID PARTIES AT PAGES 45 & 46 OF THE PA PER BOOK TOTALING TO RS.27,77,500/- AND THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS FURNISHED AT PAGES 47 TO 120 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FURT HER POINTED OUT THAT IN RESPECT OF OTHER ADVANCES, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE CONFI RMATIONS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. IT WAS VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED BY THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESEN TATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE RECEIPTS IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS COU LD NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE LD. AUTHOR IZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ER RED IN NOT ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN VIEW OF RULE 46 OF THE RULES . THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE SAID PERSONS F OR VERIFICATION. 8. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVE NUE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND PLO T DEVELOPMENT. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO THE CASH DEPOSIT BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS.31,90, 000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH 6 ITA NO.658/PN/2013 JAN SEVA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., NETAJI NAGAR BRANCH, P UNE. IN VIEW THEREOF, NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF THE SAID CASH DEPOSITED IN I TS BANK ACCOUNT. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE B ANK WERE OUT OF ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM THE CUSTOMERS AGAINST BOOKING OF THE PLOT. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUISITIONED TO PRODUCE COMPLETE EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED CERTAIN DETAILS I.E. THE STAMPED VOUCHERS OF AMOUNT RECEIVED IN CASH WITH RESPECT TO 11 PERSONS. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRO DUCE THE CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE BALANCE PERSONS AND ALSO THE ADDRESSES OF THE SAID PERSONS COULD NOT BE FURNISHED BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS . THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THUS, TREATED THE ENTIRE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.31,90,0 00/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND MADE THE ADDITION I N THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE FIRST PLANK OF ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE SAID AMOUNT COULD NOT BE ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE SAID AMOUN T DURING THE COURSE OF BOOKING OF THE PLOTS AND WAS ITS BUSINESS RECEIPT. THE ASS ESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT DUE TO PROPER OPPORTUNITY NOT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER, NECESSARY EVIDENCE COULD NOT BE COLLECTED BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NOW COLLECTED THE EVIDENCE, WHICH MAY BE ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND THE MATTER BE ADJUDICATED AFTER CONSID ERING THE SAME. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE THAT AGAINST THE SAID C ASH DEPOSITS RECEIVED FROM THE PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS, CERTAIN AMOUNTS WERE REFUNDE D AND NECESSARY WITHDRAWALS IN CASH WERE MADE ON THE VARIOUS DATES FROM THE SAI D BANK ACCOUNT. THE CIT(A), IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AFTER ELABORATING UPON THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WAS O F THE VIEW THAT THIS WAS NOT A FIT CASE FOR THE ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE U NDER RULE 46A OF THE RULES. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGGRIEVED BY THE SA ID ACTION OF THE CIT(A). 7 ITA NO.658/PN/2013 11. UNDER RULE 46A OF THE RULES, THE COMMISSIONER H AS POWER TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SAID RULE, UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY IT COULD NOT FURNISH THE SAID INFORMATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND AFTER GOING THROUGH THE PROCEEDINGS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT, WHICH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE DATES MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TH E INITIAL PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD THEREAFTER APPEARE D BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM DATE TO DATE. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED VIDE LET TER DATED 09.11.2010 THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT WERE OUT OF THE ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM THE CUSTOMERS AGAINST BOOKING OF PLOTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE REQUISITE INFORMATION VIDE ORDER-SHEET ENTRY DATED 22.11.2010. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE SAID IN FORMATION BY THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING I.E. 07.12.2010 AND THEREAFTER THE MATTER W AS ADJOURNED TO 15.12.2010 AND 29.12.2010. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) HAS EXP LAINED THE REASONS FOR NON- COMPLIANCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE OF PAUCITY OF TIME AND THE NATURE OF EVIDENCES TO BE COLLECTED. HOWEVER, THE EVIDENC E WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN SUPPORT OF THE ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM THE CUSTOMERS, COPIES OF WHICH HAVE FILED BEFORE US ALSO. CERTAIN INFORMATION WAS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHICH WAS ALSO NOT CONSIDER ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE TOTAL CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT . THE FIRST ASPECT OF THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF HIS BUSINESS COULD BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER S ECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE SECOND ASPECT OF THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS JUSTIFIABLY EXPLAINED THE SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT TOTAL ING TO RS.31,90,000/-. WE FIND THE PRESENT CASE TO BE A FIT CASE FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE RULES AND FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES OF NA TURAL JUSTICE, AFTER ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, WE DEEM IT FIT TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE 8 ITA NO.658/PN/2013 ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CONTENTS OF THE ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCE AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON VERIFICATION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT COULD BE APPLIED AND ALSO THE FACTUM OF CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT, SHALL ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE DE NOVO BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW, AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE A SSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FURNISH THE COMPLETE EVIDENCE BEFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO AS ADMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, PR ODUCE THE PERSONS, WHO HAD ADVANCED THE SAID AMOUNTS TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, W E REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADJUDICATE THE SAM E IN LINE WITH OUR DIRECTIONS. SINCE, WE ARE SETTING-ASIDE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE F ILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE DO NOT ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE ON MERITS. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PUR POSES. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TR EATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 19 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015. SD/- SD/- ( R.K. PANDA ) ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE ; DATED : 19 TH AUGUST, 2015. % & '()* +*( ! COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A)-II, PUNE; 4) THE CIT-II, PUNE; 5) THE DR B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. %, / BY ORDER , '# //TRUE COPY// $ %&# '( / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) '* + / ITAT, PUNE