Daryodhan Singh, Ludhiana V. ITO, W-3(2), Ludhiana

ITA 733/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0235 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Source of fund
• Section: 143(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO.733/CHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 DARYODHAN SINGH VS. THE ITO V&PO: SAHNEWAL KHURD WARD 3(2) LUDHIANA LUDHIANA PAN NO. CRRPS0419R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. SUBHASH JAIN, CA REVENUE BY : SH. Y.K. MITTAL, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 25/03/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29/03/2019 ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 19/03/2018 OF LD. CIT(A)-1, LUDHIANA. 2. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FO LLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS)-L, LUDHIANA IS AGAINST LAW AND FACTS ON THE FILE IN AS MUCH AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN REJECTING THE FACTUAL SUBMISSION MADE WITH RESPECT TO THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT OF RS. 11,42,744/- MADE IN PURCHASE OF C AR AND WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO UPHOLD THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS COUNT. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. 1, THE LD. COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, LUDHIANA ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THA T THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS INTEREST FROM BANK AND AGRICULTURA L INCOME AND WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO ARBITRARILY UPHOLD THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF CAR WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME . 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, LUDHIANA WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO ARBITRARILY UPHOLD THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,85,382/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTION OF INTEREST CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. VIDE GROUND NO. 1 & 2 THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSES SEE RELATES TO THE SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION OF RS. 11,42,744/- MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF CAR. 4. THE FACTS RELATED TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE THA T THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 13/08/2013 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 3,3 9,760/- WHICH WAS 2 PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT). LATER ON THE CASE WAS SELECT ED FOR SCRUTINY. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNED ONE TOYOTA CARE WIT H REGISTRATION NO. PB10DQ6035 PURCHASED IN MAY 2012 OUT OF BANK WITHDR AWALS AND CASH IN HAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE A DETAIL RESPONSE AND TO RECONCILE THE SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR PURCHASE OF MOTOR VEHICLE. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS UNDER: AS REGARDS THE SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR PURCHASE OF MO TOR VEHICLE THE SAID VEHICLE WAS PURCHASED AND PAID IN CASH FROM OWN POCKET AND AFTER WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS ANNEXED WITH THIS REPLY. RS. 85,0 00/- FROM BOI ON 12/05/2012 AND RS. 8,00,000/- FROM OBC ON 30/05/2012. THE BALA NCE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,10,000/- WAS PAID OUT OF OWN CASH IN BANK. 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBM ISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE CAR WAS PURCHASED ON 08/05/2012 W HILE THE DATE OF REGISTRATION COPY WAS 14/05/2012. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE PAYMENT IN CASH FOR PURCHASE OF NEW VEHICLE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE AF TER 22 DAYS OF PURCHASE, HE THEREFORE MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,42,744/-. 7. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT CASH IN HAND FOR PURCHASE OF CAR ON 08/05/2012 AND THAT THE CASH OF RS. 8,00,000/- WAS WITHDRAWN ON 08/05/2012 FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH STATE BANK OF PATIALA (SBOP), KUPKALAN WHICH WAS USED FOR THE PURCHASE OF CAR AND THE BALA NCE AMOUNT WAS OUT OF THE OPENING CASH IN HAND WHICH WAS AT RS. 4,00,000/-. H OWEVER THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AN D SUSTAINED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING IN PARA 12 & 13 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER: 12. THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY EXAMINED. IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE APPELLANT IS ANYHOW TRYING TO P ROVE THAT HE HAD SUFFICIENT CASH IN HAND TO MAKE THE IMPUGNED PURCHASE OF CAR ON 08/ 05/2012. AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE, WITHDRAWALS OF CASH FROM THE APPELLANT'S BAN K ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED WITH BOI AND OBC ON 12 TH & 30 TH OF MAY, 2012 RESPECTIVELY AMOUNTING TO RS.85,000/- & RS.8 LAKHS WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN THE SOURCE OF AV AILABILITY OF CASH FOR THE SAID PURCHASE. HOWEVER, WHEN SUCH EXPLANATION WAS DISCOU NTED AND DISCREDITED BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT CASH PAYMENT FOR THE LUXU RY VEHICLE CANNOT BE MADE AFTER 22 DAYS OF PURCHASE, THE APPELLANT HAS NOW CO ME UP WITH THE EXPLANATION THAT HE HAD THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH OF RS.8 LAKHS ON 08/05/2012 ON ACCOUNT OF WITHDRAWAL OF THE LIKE AMOUNT FROM BANK ACCOUNT NO. 65111367109 MAINTAINED WITH THE SAID BANK OF PATIALA, KUP KALAN BRANCH. FR OM THE TRUNCATED COPY OF STATEMENT OF BANK ACCOUNT FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD F ILED IN SUPPORT OF THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT, IT WAS NOTIC ED THAT PRIOR TO THE WITHDRAWAL OF CASH OF RS.8 LAKHS ON 08/05/2012, THERE WAS A CR EDIT ENTRY OF THE LIKE AMOUNT ON THE SAID DATE, WHOSE NARRATION WAS SEEN TO BE 'DEP TFR/ TRF FR. 0065139992040'. WHEN THE APPELLANT WAS CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN THE A FORESAID CREDIT ENTRY OF RS.8 LAKHS, THE APPELLANT ADDUCED A VAGUE CERTIFICATE FR OM THE BANK TO THE EFFECT: 'AN AMOUNT OF RS.800000/-(EIGHT LAC RS. ONLY) CREDI TED TO CUSTOMER DARYODHAN 3 SINGH'S ACCOUNT NO.- 65111367109 HAS BEEN CREDITED BY DEBITING TO THE DEMAND LOAN ACCOUNT NO.- 65139992040 ON DATED 08 MAY 2012' . 13. FROM THIS UNINTELLIGIBLE CERTIFICATE FROM THE B ANK, IT COULD ONLY BE GATHERED THAT SOME LOAN AMOUNT WAS TRANSFERRED FROM ONE ACCO UNT TO THE OTHER ACCOUNT. THE APPELLANT COULD NOT EXPLAIN ANYTHING AS TO THE PURPOSE OF SUCH LOAN ACCOUNT. BESIDES, IF THE MONEY WAS TRANSFERRED OUT OF SOME DEMAND LOAN ACCOUNT, HOW COULD THE SAME BE USED FOR PURCHASE OF CAR. SURELY, THE LOAN ACCOUNT WAS NOT MEANT FOR PURCHASE OF CAR. THE APPE LLANT'S EXPLANATION, THUS, NOT ONLY APPEARS TO BE VAGUE BUT ABSOLUTELY OBFUSCA TORY. THE EXPLANATION REGARDING THE PART FUNDING OF VEHICLE FROM THE OPEN ING CASH IN HAND ALSO DO NOT GET PROVED SO AS TO GIVE THE APPELLANT BENEFIT OF T HE SAID AMOUNT. THE APPELLANT'S REPETITIVE CONTENTION THAT HE HAS NO IN COME OTHER THAN AGRICULTURE AND BANK INTEREST CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO MANIPULATE T HE REQUIREMENT OF LAW WHICH CASTS A BURDEN ON THE APPELLANT ALONE TO EXPL AIN THE SOURCES OF INVESTMENTS. QUITE EVIDENTLY, THE APPELLANT HAS MIS ERABLY FAILED IN EXPLAINING THE SOURCES OF INVESTMENT IN CAR. THE DECISION OF THE A O TO TREAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT AS UNEXPLAINED, THUS, IN THE CIRCUMSTANC ES, CANNOT BE INTERFERED WITH. THE GROUND OF APPEAL PERTAINING TO THE AFORESAID IM PUGNED ADDITION [SR. NO. 5 & 6 SUPRA] IS REJECTED. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 8. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN RS. 8,00,000/- FROM SBOP ON 08/05/2012, R EFERENCE WAS MADE TO PAGE 11 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK WHICH IS THE COPY O F THE AFORESAID BANK ACCOUNT WHEREIN CASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 8,00,000/- W AS SHOWN ON 08/05/2012. IT WAS STATED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS UTILIZED FOR PU RCHASE OF CAR AND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH WAS A CCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALSO A REFERENCE WA S MADE TO PARA 7.1 AND 7.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ACCEPTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 6,40,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR RATE PURPOSES. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,0 0,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES AND THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE SAID A DDITION FOR THE REASONS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 6,40,000/-. IT WAS STATED THAT EVEN IF THE HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES WERE CONSIDERED OUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME STILL RS. 40,000/- WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF CAR AND REMAINING AMOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN OUT OF THE OPENING C ASH BALANCE WHICH GENERATED IN THE EARLIER YEARS FROM THE AGRICULTURA L INCOME. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER AND SUSTAINED BUY THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 10. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. SR. DR STRONGL Y SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REITERATED THE OBSERVATIONS M ADE THEREIN. 4 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CA SE IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN RS. 8,00,000/- ON 08/05/2012 WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM PAGE NO. 11 OF THE ASSESSEES COMPILATION WHICH IS COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH SBOP. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS UTILIZED FOR PURCHASE OF VEHICLE WHILE THE OBSERVAT ION OF THE LD. CIT(A) WAS THAT ON THE SAME DATE THE AMOUNT OF RS. 8,00,000/- WAS T RANSFERRED FOR DEMAND LOAN ACCOUNT AND THE CERTIFICATE ADDUCED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS VAGUE. IN OUR OPINION THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAIN ING THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,00,000/- PARTICULARLY WHEN HE ACCEPTED THAT THE CASH OF RS. 8,00,000/- WAS WITHDRAWN ON 08/05/2012 AND EVEN IF THERE WAS CREDIT ENTRY ON TH E SAME DATE FROM THE DEMAND LOAN ACCOUNT THAT CANNOT BE A REASON TO DENY THE BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE PARTICULARLY WHEN IT IS NOT BROUGHT ON REC ORD THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 8,00,000/- WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS UTILIZED ELSEWHERE. WE THEREFORE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TO CONSIDER THE AMOUNT OF RS. 8,00,000/- WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE ON 08/05/2 012, USED FOR PURCHASE OF THE VEHICLE ON 08/05/2012. AS REGARDS TO THE REMAINING ADDITION OF RS. 3,42,744/- (RS. 11,42,744/- (-) RS. 8,00,000/-) IS CONCERNED IT IS NOTICED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCO ME OF RS. 6,40,000/- OUT OF WHICH RS. 6,00,000/- WAS CONSIDERED BY THE LD. CIT( A) AS A UTILIZATION FOR HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES THEREFORE THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 40,000/- IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS SOURCE FOR PURCHASE OF VEHICLE. AS RE GARDS TO THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 3,42,744/- THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IT WAS OUT OF THE OPENING CASH IN HAND GENERATED IN EARLIER YEARS FRO M THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME BUT NO DETAIL OF THE SAID CASH GENERATION IS AVAILA BLE ON THE RECORD. IT IS ALSO NOT CLEAR THAT HOW MUCH AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS SHOWN B Y THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER YEARS WHICH WAS AVAILABLE AS OPENING CASH I N HAND THEREFORE THIS LIMITED ISSUE RELATING TO RS. 3,42,744/- IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PRO VIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 12. VIDE GROUND NO. 3 THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION OF RS. 4,85,382/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTION OF INTEREST CLAIM BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 13. THE FACTS RELATED TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTICED THAT T HE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT WAS CREDITED WITH AN AGGREGATING INTEREST O F RS. 7,98,566/- ACCRUED ON 5 FDRS WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE AMOUNT OF RS . 3,13,184/- WHICH WAS BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SO URCES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MENTIONED THAT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSES SEE WAS THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS DEDUCTED FROM COMPUTATION OF INCOME, SINCE IT WAS P AID TO SHRI MAHINDER SINGH FOR THE OUTSTANDING LOAN TAKEN BY HIM IN THE EARLIE R YEARS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION FOR DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF RS. 4,85 ,382/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT ACCEPTED THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE T HAT THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 4,85,382/- PERTAINED TO SHRI. MAHINDER SINGH WH ICH WAS RECEIVED IN THE JOINT ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT FAMILY PARTITION TOOK PLACE ON 01/09 /2011 WHEREBY THE SOME OF THE FIXED DEPOSITS WHICH WERE HELD IN THE JOINT NAM ES OF THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH HIS FATHER SH. MAHINDER SINGH WERE TO BE TRANSFERRE D TO THE RESPECTIVE INDIVIDUALS ACCOUNTS AND THAT SINCE THE MATURITY DATE OF THE FD RS, JOINTLY HELD BY THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH HIS FATHER HAD NOT COME TO ITS C OMPLETION, THE SAID FDRS WERE NOT REDEEMED AND REMAINED WITH THE ASSESSEE, W ITH THE RESULT THAT THE INTEREST ACCRUING ON SUCH FDRS WAS CREDITED INTO AC COUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH SHOULD HAVE IDEALLY GONE TO THE ASSESSEES FATHER S HRI MAHINDER SINGH BASED ON THE PURPORTED PRIVATE SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE MEMBER S OF THE LARGER HUF. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT SHRI MAHINDER SINGH HAD INCLUDED T HE INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 4,85,382/- IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. 15. LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BROUGHT ON RECORD THE GENERAL AND ANONYMOUS DECLARATION OF FAMILY SETTLEMENT ON A PLAIN PAPER WHICH COULD NOT BE IMPARTED ANY EVIDENTIARY VALUE. THE LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING IN PARA 7 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER: EVEN IF THE AFORESTATED FAMILY PARTITION IS CONSIDE RED TO BE SACROSANCT, THE STIPULATION THEREIN TO THE EFFECT THAT 'MONEY STANDING INTO THE CREDIT OF BANK ACCOUNT OF ANY MEMBER SHALL EXCLUSIVELY BELONG TO T HE MEMBER IN WHOSE BANK ACCOUNT IT IS BEING MAINTAINED AND OTHER MEMBER(S) SHALL HAVE NO CONCERN WITH THE SAME', DOES NOT COME TO THE AID OF THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED B Y THE APPELLANT. BESIDES, THERE IS A HOTCHPOTCH OF FDRS S TANDING TO THE CREDIT OF THE APPELLANT IN AS MUCH AS THE MATURITY AMOUNT OF ONE FDR STANDS REINVESTED IN A NEW FDR. THE APPELLANT ALSO COULD NOT CATEGORICALLY STATE AS TO WHICH FDR WAS HELD IN THE JOINT NAME OF THE APPELLANT AND HIS FAT HER, NECESSITATING THE BIFURCATION OF INTEREST. BESIDES, THE JOINT OWNERSH IP OF THE FDR DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY WAS JOINTLY CONTRIBUT ED IN EQUAL PERCENTAGE AND INCOME/INTEREST ACCRUING THEREON WAS REQUIRED T O BE BIFURCATED EQUALLY OR IN THE PROPORTION OF THE AMOUNT OF MONEY CONTRIBUTED. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT BEEN ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE INTEREST INCOME P URPORTEDLY BELONGING TO HIS FATHER WAS TRANSFERRED BACK TO HIM FOR HIS UTILISAT ION OR ACCRETION OF HIS WEALTH. NEITHER COULD THE APPELLANT SHOW THAT THE PURPORTED SHARE OF HIS FATHER IN THE INTEREST INCOME WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK AND GIV EN BACK TO HIM. NO 6 RECONCILIATION ACCOUNT WAS ALSO FILED EITHER AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE OR DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS.4,85,382/- FROM THE INTEREST INC OME EARNED BY HIM IS MERELY AN ARTIFICE TO EVADE PAYMENT OF TAX ON THE SAID INCOME AT A HIGHER SLAB RATE. THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE AO IN THIS REGARD IS HELD TO BE JUSTIFIED. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL [SI. NOS. 2 & 3 SUPRA] PERTAINING TO THE AFO RESAID IMPUGNED ADDITION, THUS, STAND REJECTED AS BEREFT OF ANY MERIT. 16. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 17. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUB MISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH HIS ANOTHER FAMILY MEMBERS DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT IN FDRS AND AFTER THE FAMILY SETTLEMENT, WHATEVER INTERST PERTAINED TO HIS FATHER SHRI MAHIN DER SINGH WAS REDUCED FROM THE TOTAL INTEREST CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE A SSESSEE AND THE SAID AMOUNT OF INTEREST WAS SHOWN BY SHRI MAHINDER SINGH IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME WHICH HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT, THEREFORE THE SAME INCOME CANNOT BE TAXED TWICE I.E; IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WE LL AS HIS FATHER. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. SR. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE O RDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REITERATED THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THEIR RESPE CTIVE ORDERS. 18. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CA SE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE FDRS CREDITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT PERT AINED TO ALL THE FAMILY MEMBERS AND AFTER FAMILY SETTLEMENT THE INTEREST PE RTAINING TO HIS FATHER SHRI MAHINDER SINGH, WAS REDUCED FROM THE INTEREST EARNE D IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THE SAID INTEREST INCOME REDU CED FROM THE TOTAL INTEREST WAS SHOWN BY SHRI MAHINDER SINGH IN HIS INDIVIDUAL HANDS WHICH HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THIS FACT REQUIRES THE VERIFICATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE THEREFORE, DEEM IT APPROP RIATE TO REMAND THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE ADJ UDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROPER VERIFICATION AND PROVIDING DU E AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 19. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29/03/2019 ). SD/- (N.K. SAINI) VICE PRESIDENT PLACE: CHANDIGARH DATED : 29/03/2019 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR