Chandra sahu, Bhopal V. ITO-1(4), Bhopal

ITA 75/Ind/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6103 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 18-03-2021
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: GIRISH AGRAWAL; NISHA LAHOTIA ARS
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business income; Additional evidence; Validity of assessment
• Section: 44AD; 143(3); 142(1); 12A; 201; 69A; 139(1); 73; 13; 68; 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HONBLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HONBLE MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.75&76/IND/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 & 2011-12 SMT. CHANDRA SAHU : APPELLANT H NO.26, 1 ST FLOOR, ABOVE SHUBHAM HOTEL, SARPANCH CHOURAHA, JEHANGIRABAD, BHOPAL PAN : BEKPS0709F V/S ITO-1(4), BHOPAL : RESPONDENT REVENUE BY SHRI HARSHIT BARI, SR.DR ASSESSEE BY SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL & MISS NISHA LAHOTIA, ARS DATE OF HEARING 0 7 .04 .2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30 . 0 4 . 202 1 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEALS FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2011-12 ARE DIRECTED SMT. CHANDRA SAHU ITA NO.75 & 76/IND/2019 2 AGAINST THE ORDERS OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X(APPEALS)-I (IN SHORT LD. CIT], BHOPAL DATED 16.11.2018 WHICH AR E ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961(IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 07.01.2016 FRAMED BY ITO-1(4), BHO PAL. 2. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND APPLI CABLE LAW, LD. CIT(A)-I, BHOPAL ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ORDER P ASSED BY LD. A.O U/S 143(3) RWS 147 WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORDS AND PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, AND BAD IN LAW. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND APPL ICABLE LAW, LD. CIT(A)-I, BHOPAL ERRED IN NOT PROVIDING THE COPY OF REASONS RECORDED WHICH FORMS THE BASIS OF MAKING ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 RWS 143(3). 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND APPLI CABLE LAW, LD. CIT(A)-I, BHOPAL ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.4,50,000/- AS DEPOSIT OF CASH IN SAVINGS BANK AC COUNT FROM UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND APPL ICABLE LAW, LD. CIT(A)-I, BHOPAL ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING FACTS OF THE CASE IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND APPLI CABLE LAW, LD. CIT(A)-I, BHOPAL ERRED IN NOT ADMITTING THE ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCES FILED UNDER RULE 46A WHICH GO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER. 6. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND APPLI CABLE LAW, LD. CIT(A)-I, BHOPAL ERRED IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS.4,50,000/- SMT. CHANDRA SAHU ITA NO.75 & 76/IND/2019 3 UNDER SECTION 69A WHICH WAS MADE BY LD. A.O OF BY A PPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 7. THAT, THE APPELLANT, CARVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER OR OTHERWISE RAISE ANY OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND APPLI CABLE LAW, LD. CIT(A)-I, BHOPAL ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ORDER P ASSED BY LD. A.O U/S 143(3) RWS 147 WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORDS AND PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, AND BAD IN LAW. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND APPL ICABLE LAW, LD. CIT(A)-I, BHOPAL ERRED IN NOT PROVIDING THE COPY OF REASONS RECORDED WHICH FORMS THE BASIS OF MAKING ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 RWS 143(3). 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND APPLI CABLE LAW, LD. CIT(A)-I, BHOPAL ERRED IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS.35,00,000/- AS DEPOSIT OF CASH IN SAVINGS BANK A CCOUNT FROM UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND APPLI CABLE LAW, LD. CIT(A)-I, BHOPAL ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE F ACTS AND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE . 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND APPLI CABLE LAW, LD. CIT(A)-I, BHOPAL ERRED IN NOT ADMITTING THE ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCES FILED UNDER RULE 46A WHICH GO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER. 6. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND APP LICABLE LAW, LD. CIT(A)-I, BHOPAL ERRED IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS.35,00,000/- UNDER SECTION 69A WHICH WAS MADE BY L D. A.O OF BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT . SMT. CHANDRA SAHU ITA NO.75 & 76/IND/2019 4 7. THAT, THE APPELLANT, CARVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER OR OTHERWISE RAISE ANY OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS CULLED OUT FROM THE R ECORDS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVING INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND INCOME FROM RUNNING A RESTAURANT. RETURN OF INC OME U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 WAS F ILED ON 22.09.2011 AT RS.2,18,555/- AND AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS.1,26,500/- AND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 RETUR N OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 14.02.2012 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 2,5 0,459/- AND AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS.84,500/-. NOTICES U/S 148 OF THE ACT FOLLOWED BY NOTICE U/S 142(1) WERE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. DURING THE COURSE OF A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS LD. A.O ENQUIRED ABOUT THE SOURCE OF CR EDIT IN THE BANK BY CHEQUE AS WELL AS CASH DEPOSITED. EXPLANATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE. THE ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 WAS COMPLETED AFTER MAKING ADDITION FOR UNEXPLAINED CREDIT IN THE BANK AT RS.4,50,000/-. F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ADDITION FOR UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.35 LAKHS SMT. CHANDRA SAHU ITA NO.75 & 76/IND/2019 5 WAS MADE. AGAINST THESE ADDITIONS ASSESSEE PREFERR ED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. AT THE OUTSET LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REQUE STED FOR NOT PRESSING THE LEGAL GROUND CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT. WRIT TEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REPRODUCED BELOW:- SYNOPSIS 1. ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVING INCOME FROM R UNNING OF RESTAURANT. 2. AY 2010-11- ADDITION OF RS. 4,50,000 MADE U/S 68 . SR. NO. DATE AMOUNT {RS.} CHEQUE NO. 1 24.04.2009 1,35,000 644745 2 05.05.2009 1,50,000 644747 3 27.04.2009 1,65,000 506483 TOTAL 4,50,000 FOR THE ITEMS AT SR. NO.1 AND 2 THESE AMOUNTS WER E RECEIVED AS LOAN FROM SHRI ARUN KUMAR TIWARI. LOAN CONFIRMATION LETTER A ND BANK STATEMENT OF SHRI ARUN KUMAR TIWARI WAS SUBMITTED. IDENTITY OF LENDER - ADDRESS OF SHRI ARUN KUMAR TIW ARI IS MENTIONED BOTH ON THE LOAN CONFIRMATION LETTER AND HIS BANK STATEMENT GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION - TRANSACTIONS ARE EXECU TED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL CREDITWORTHINESS OF TRANSACTION ESTABLISHED THROU GH BANK STATEMENT OF SHRI ARUN KUMAR TIWARI WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTION . SOURCE OF CREDIT OF RS. 2,85,000 APPEARING IN THE B ANK STATEMENT STANDS EXPLAINED. SMT. CHANDRA SAHU ITA NO.75 & 76/IND/2019 6 B. LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER HAS STATED THAT THERE IS D EPOSIT OF CASH PRIOR TO CLEARING OF CHEQUE. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN (SOURCE OF SOURCE'. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH IN THE CASE OF METACHEM INDUSTRIES - [2000] 245 ITRV 160 - ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 01.09.1999 - PARA 4 - THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY TO EXPLAIN THAT THIS INVESTMEN T HAS BEEN MADE BY THE PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL AND IT IS RESPONSIBILITY OF THAT INDIVIDUAL TO ACCOUNT FOR THE INVESTMENT MADE BY HIM. IF THAT PER SON OWNS THAT ENTRY, THEN THE BURDEN OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM IS DISC HARGED. IT IS OPEN FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO UNDERTAKE FURTHER INVESTIG ATION WITH REGARD TO THAT INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS DEPOSITED THIS AMOUNT. [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED] C. NO DOUBT HAS BEEN RAISED ON THE OPENING CASH BALANC E AS ON 01.04.2009 OF RS. 6,91,804. THUS, THIS CASH BALANCE OF RS. 6,9 1,804 IS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. [PB 6 - AY 2010-11] D. PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 NOT APPLICABLE - IN VIEW OF THE NOTING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGE 4 POINT (F) NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND INCOME TROM BUSINESS HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX U/S 44AD OFL.T. A CT ... N , NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE U/S 68. BANK STATEMENTS ARE NOT THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE. E. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRECEDE NTS WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT IN CASE OF NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, NO ADDITION IS WARRA NTED U/S 68- I. MANASI MAHENDRA PITKAR - [2016] 73 TAXMANN.COM 6 8 (MUMBAI) ORDER DATED 12.08.2016 - PARA 9 II. BHAICHAND N GANDHI [1982] 1411TR 67 (BORN) III. RAJSHIBHAI MERAMANBHAI ODERDRA - ITA NO. 1019 TO 1023/RJT/2010 - HON'BLE RAJKOT BENCH OF ITAT - ORDER DATED 14.12.20 12 - PARA 8.3 IV. MADHU RAITANI - [2011] 45 SOT 231 - HON'BLE GAU HATI BENCH OF ITAT (TM) - 07.10.2010 V. TAJ BOREWELLS - [2007] 291 ITR 232 - HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT - DATED 02.04.2007 - FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ANANTHRAM VEERASINGHAIAH & CO [1980] 123 ITR 457 DATED 15.04.1981. VI. HON'BLE DELHI BENCH (SMC) OF ITAT IN THE CASE O F AMITABH BANSAL- [2019] 102 TAXMANN.COM 229 - ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 11 .02.2019- PARA 6.2 - 'FROM ABOVE PROVISIONS IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT MER E BANK SMT. CHANDRA SAHU ITA NO.75 & 76/IND/2019 7 STATEMENT WHICH IS ISSUED BY BANK TO ITS CLIENT/ACC OUNT HOLDER CAN'T BE ELEVATED TO STATUS OF BOOKS MAINTAINED BY ASSESSEE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2 CLAUSE 12A AND SECTION 44AA OF THE ACT. N [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED] 3. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE AND THE APPLICABLE LAW, ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OUGHT TO BE DE LETED. THE CLOSING BALANCE OF CASH AS ON 31.03.2010 OF RS. 20,52,304 IS AVAILABLE AS OPENING CASH BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2010 I.E. FOR AY 2 011-12. [PB 7 - AY 2010-11] 4. AY 2011-12 - ADDITION OF RS. 35,00,000 U/S 68 A. CLOSING BALANCE OF CASH AS ON 31.03.2010 OF RS. 20, 52,304 IS AVAILABLE AS OPENING CASH BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2010 FOR THE IM PUGNED YEAR I.E. AY 2011-12. [PB 9 - AY 2011-12] B. ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2011-12 WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) ON 11.02.2014 BY ASSESSING THE INCOME SAME AS RETURNED INCOME. [PB 0 3-04 - AY 2011-12] C. THE CLOSING CASH BALANCE OF RS. 20,52,304 STANDS AC CEPTED AS NO DOUBT HAS BEEN RAISED. D. THE EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF DEPOSIT OF CASH TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 30,00,000 IS ACCEPTED BY LD. AD IN THE ASSESSMENT O RDER ITSELF. DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER- I. PAGE 3 - ' AS SUCH SOURCES OF ONLY RS. 30.00 LACS AS AGAINST RS. 35.00 LACS ARE FOUND TO BE EXPLAINABLE . N II. PAGE 4 PARA 9 - 'NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FULLY EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT S. THE SOURCES OF ONLY RS. 30.00 LACS ARE EXPLAINABLE IN THE SUBMISSION FI LED BEFORE THE DDITONVJ-2, BHOPAL AND RS. 28,40,000/ FROM CASH FLO W STATEMENT FURNISHED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS N E. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE FINDING, LD. AO HAS FA ILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY POSITIVE MATERIAL TO ESTABLISH THAT THE CASH SO WI THDRAWN WAS NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. 5. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRE CEDENT- A. HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL BENCH OF INDORE ITAT IN THE CASE OF KAKUL YADAV - IT(SS)A NO. 321JLNDJ2017 - ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 16.05.2019 - [ENCLOSED WITH THIS SUBMISSION AT PAGE NO. OS-12] PARA 9 - KEEPING THE CASH IN HAND IDLE FOR ALMOST A YEAR RANGING FROM RS. 4,91,005/- FROM FEBRUARY, 201 3 TO RS. 9,51,605/- AT THE END OF JANUARY, 2014 CANNOT BE A BASIS TO REJECT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO BAR UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT WHICH RESTRICTS A SMT. CHANDRA SAHU ITA NO.75 & 76/IND/2019 8 PERSON (ROM KEEPING CASH IN HANDLE IDLE FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD .' [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED] IN THE INSTANT CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS STATED THAT WHY ANY PERSON WOULD KEEP SUCH HUGE CASH IN HAND IN ANTICIPATION OF IMMEDIATE NEED OF CASH. PER FINDING GIVEN IN THE ABOVE REFERRED DECISION OF KAK UL YADAV (SUPRA) THERE IS NO BAR UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT WHICH RESTRICTS A PERSON FROM KEEPING CASH IN HAND IDLE FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD. 6. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND THE APPLICABLE LAW, ADDITION OF RS. 35,00,000 MADE UNDER SECTION 6 8 OUGHT TO BE DELETED, MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN THE LD. AO HIMSELF HAS GIVEN THE POSITIVE FINDING ON CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 30 LACS WHICH HE HAS TAKEN AS EXPLAI NED. 6. PER CONTRA LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTE D THE ORDERS OF BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND ALSO SUBMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE SIMILAR SUBMISSIONS BEFORE TH E LD. A.O AND LD. CIT(A) AND FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CHEQ UE AND CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE REC ORDS PLACED BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL FOR AS SESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2011-12. 8. LEGAL GROUND NO. 1 & 2 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-1 1 AND 2011-12 CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT ARE DISMISSED AS NOT P RESSED. 9. COMMON GROUND NO.5 RAISED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010- 11 AND ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ALLEGING THAT LD. CIT(A ) ERRED BY NOT ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED U/S 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES SMT. CHANDRA SAHU ITA NO.75 & 76/IND/2019 9 ALSO DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED AS NO SUBMISSIONS HAV E BEEN PUTFORTH BEFORE US BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 10. NOW THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS ON MERITS ARE WITH REGARD TO ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT AT RS.4,50,000/- FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND U/S 69A OF THE ACT AT RS.35,00,000 /- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 11. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION FOR RS.4,50,000/- FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2010-11, WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE FO R FOLLOWING THREE AMOUNTS CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. S.NO DATE AMOUNT (RS.) CHEQUE NO. 1 24.04.2009 1,35,000 644745 2 05.05.2009 1,50,000 644747 3 27.04.2009 1,65,000 506483 TOTAL 4,50,000 12. ASSESSEE FAILED TO CONVINCE BOTH THE LOWER AUTH ORITIES WITH REGARD TO THE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF T HE CREDITORS AT RS. 2,85,000/- (RS.1,35,000/- + RS.1,50,000/-). BE FORE US ALSO IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE STATED AMOUNT OF RS.2, 85,000/- WAS RECEIVED FROM SHRI ARUN KUMAR TIWARI. LOAN CONFIRM ATION LETTER AND BANK STATEMENT HAVE BEEN FILED. IN THE BANK ST ATEMENT OF SHRI SMT. CHANDRA SAHU ITA NO.75 & 76/IND/2019 10 ARUN KUMAR TIWARI EQUAL AMOUNT OF CASH WAS DEPOSITE D A DAY BEFORE THE ISSUE OF CHEQUE TO THE ASSESSEE. NO EVID ENCE TO SHOW THE SOURCE OF CASH AVAILABLE WITH SHRI ARUN KUMAR TIWAR I AND HIS FINANCIAL STRENGTH HAS BEEN FILED. SUBMISSIONS MAD E BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US ARE NOT SUFFICIE NT TO EXPLAIN THE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE TRANSACTION . SIMILARLY WITH REGARD TO SUM RECEIVED AT RS.1,65,000/- ON 27. 4.2009 NO SPECIFIC DETAILS HAVE BEEN FILED AND ONLY GENERAL S UBMISSIONS ARE MADE. 13. WE THUS ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ASSESS EE HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO SUCCEED IN THE TEST LAID DOWN I N THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND THUS COULD NOT EXPLAIN TH E SOURCE OF CREDIT OF CHEQUE OF RS.1,65,000/- AND CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM SHRI ARUN KUMAR TIWARI AT R S.2,85,000/- . WE THUS FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) AND THUS CONFIRM THE ADDITION. RELEVANT GROUND NO. 3, 4 & 6 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING ON MERITS OF ADDITION OF R S.4,50,000/- ARE THUS DISMISSED. 14. GROUND NO.7 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2010-11 IS GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH NEEDS NO ADJUDIC ATION. SMT. CHANDRA SAHU ITA NO.75 & 76/IND/2019 11 15. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2010-11 IS DISMISSED. 16. NOW WE TAKE UP THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF RS.35,0 0,000/- MADE U/S 69A OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MAINLY ARGUED THAT THE CASH BALANCE AS ON 31.3.2010 AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.20,52,304/- WHIC H HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED BY THE LD. A.O. FURTHER LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE TOOK US THROUGH SOME OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. A.O ACCEPTING THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL DEPOSIT OF RS.35,00,000/-, ASSESS EE HAD BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF RS.30,00,000/-. RELIANCE HAS ALSO BEEN PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL CLAIMING TH AT KEEPING IDLE CASH IN HAND OF HIGH AMOUNT IDLE IS NOT ILLEGAL AND THE ASSESSEE KEPT HUGE CASH BALANCE ANTICIPATING THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF LAND TO MATERIALISE. 17. FURTHER GOING THROUGH THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) , WE FIND THAT HE HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS KEEPING A HUGE CASH IN HAND. THERE WERE REPEATED WITHDRAWALS DURING JANUARY, 201 0 TO MAY, 2010 AND THE ASSESSEE CONTINUED TO ACCUMULATE CASH TILL SHE DEPOSITED RS.35,00,000/- IN BANK ACCOUNT IN OCTOBER , 2010. DURING THE ASSESSMENT APPELLANT CLAIMED TO HAVE MAD E PAYMENT TO SMT. CHANDRA SAHU ITA NO.75 & 76/IND/2019 12 SHRI MAHESH SAHU AND SURENDRA SAHU BUT FAILED TO FU RNISH ANY EVIDENCE OF NEXUS BETWEEN THE CASH WITHDRAWALS AND REDEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. 18. SO FAR AS ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THERE IS N O LEGAL HURDLE IN KEEPING IDLE CASH IN HAND, WE FIND MERIT BUT SURROU NDING CIRCUMSTANCES ALSO NEEDS TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTION OF KEEPING IDLE CASH. NOW IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE MAINTAINED. HER SOURCE OF INCOME INCL UDES INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND INCOME FROM RESTAURANT. AS THERE WERE NO DETAILS FILED ABOUT THE TYPE OF BUSINESS BUT PRIME FACIE IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING OUT THE BUSINESS AND OFFER ING INCOME ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS, LIABLE TO BE TAXED U/S 44AF/44AD OF THE ACT. 19. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORI TIES AND BEFORE US ASSESSEE HAS REFERRED TO THE MONTH WISE CASH FLO W STATEMENT. GOING THROUGH THE SAME WE FIND THAT EXCEPT CERTAIN WITHDRAWALS AND DEPOSITS IN ROUND FIGURES NO OTHER ENTRIES OF D AY TO DAY CASH INCOME/EXPENDITURE ARE APPEARING. IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT IS ONLY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL CASH TRAN SACTIONS OR ALL THE TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO EXPLAIN VARIOUS ENTRIES APPEARIN G IN THE BANK SMT. CHANDRA SAHU ITA NO.75 & 76/IND/2019 13 STATEMENT SPECIALLY WITH REGARD TO THE AMOUNT WITHD RAWN BY SHRI SURENDRA SAHA AND SHRI MUKESH SAHU DURING THE FINAN CIAL YEAR 2009-10 WHICH HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS SOURCE OF CASH AS OPENING BALANCE. NO EXPLANATION HAS ALSO BEEN FILED ABOUT THE WITHDRAWAL/UTILIZATION OF THE AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSI TED IN THE BANK. LOOKING TO THESE FACTS, WE FIND THAT SINCE THE BEGI NNING OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TILL NOW THE EXPLANATION AND SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE LACKS CLARITY AND IT IS HARD T O REACH A CONCLUSION ABOUT THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED. HOW EVER WE FIND THAT VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE BUT REVENUE AUTHORITIES COULD NOT GO DEEPER TO BRING THE TRUTH ON RECORD. FURTHER LD. A.O AS WELL AS LD. CI T(A) HAVE OBSERVED THAT IT CANNOT NOT BE DENIED THAT THE ALLE GED AMOUNT IS AN UNACCOUNTED BUSINESS RECEIPTS. IN OUR CONSIDERED V IEW AND IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND BEING FAIR TO BOTH THE PARTIES, WE TREAT THE ALLEGED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.35 ,00,000/- AS UNACCOUNTED BUSINESS RECEIPT AND APPLY NET PROFIT R ATE OF 8% ON THIS AMOUNT WHICH COMES TO RS.2,80,000/- AND THE S AME IS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN PLACE OF RS.35,00, 000/- FOR UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT. WE THUS DELETE THE ADDIT ION OF SMT. CHANDRA SAHU ITA NO.75 & 76/IND/2019 14 RS.32,20,000/- AND CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS.2,80, 000/- AND PARTLY ALLOW GROUND NO. 3, 4 & 6 RAISED ON MERITS. 20. OTHER GROUNDS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. 21. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2010- 11 IS DISMISSED AND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED AS PER RULE 34 OF ITAT RULES, 1963 ON 30.04.2021. SD/- SD/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (MA NISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER / DATED : 30 TH APRIL, 2021 /DEV COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT CONCERNED/CIT (A) CONCERNED/ DR, ITAT, INDORE/GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, ASSTT.REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., INDORE