SHRI DILIP RAMCHANDRA GHORPADE, Kolhapur V. ITO, Kolhapur

ITA 751/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 88868 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P S NAIK
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Business income; Competent authority
• Section: 69C; 6; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE BEFORE: SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO . 751 /PN/20 1 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 8 - 09 DILIP RAMCHANDRA GHORPADE, RS NO. 10 011, NEAR TAWADE HOTEL, A/P - UCHGAON, TAL. - KARVEER, DISTT. - KOLHAPUR VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), KOLHAPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. ABPPG4602G ITA NO. 848 /PN/201 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 8 - 09 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), KOLHAPUR V S. DILIP RAMCHANDRA GHORPADE, RS NO. 10011, NEAR TAWADE HOTEL, A/P - UCHGAON, TAL. - KARVEER, DISTT. - KOLHAPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AADFD3276A PAN NO. ABPPG4602G REVENUE BY: SHRI P.S. NAIK ASSESSEE BY: SHRI M.K. KULKARNI DATE OF HEARIN G : 1 1 - 1 1 - 2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 - 01 - 2015 ORDER PER R.S . PADVEKAR , JM : - TH ESE TWO CROSS APPEALS, ONE BY THE ASSESSEE AND ANOTHER BY THE REVENUE ARE FILED, CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), KOLHAPUR DATED 23 - 02 - 2012 FOR THE A .Y. 2008 - 09. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE RELIEF GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, PREFER TO GO BY ISSUES INSTEAD OF GOING O N THE GROUNDS. 2 ITA NO S. 751 & 848/PN/2012, DILIP RAMCHANDRA GHORPADE, KOLHAPUR 2. THE FIRST ISSUE IS IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.17,53,500/ - WHICH WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.7,53,993/ - U/S. 69B OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE AS UNDER. THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNI NG OF PERMIT ROOM AND HOTEL. ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH OF RS. 17,53,500/ - IN CANARA BANK, RJARAMPUR BRANCH, KOLHAPUR. THOSE DEPOSITS WERE MADE ON AS UNDER: I. 01 - 07 - 2007 R S.3,05,000/ - II. 20 - 11 - 2007 RS.14,48,500/ - THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE SAID AMOUNT U/S. 69B OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THOSE DEPOSITS WERE OUT OF ADVANCES OF RS.12 LAKHS RECEIVED AGAINST AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF LAND RECEIVED F ROM SHRI RAHUL G. GHORPADE (RS.9 LAKHS) AND SHRI VIJAY KUMAR GHOUGULE (RS.3 LAKHS) AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.5,53,500/ - WAS INVESTED OUT OF BUSINESS INCOME AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPIES OF AGREEMENT FOR SALE O F LAND AND COPIES OF AGREEMENT FOR CANCELLATION OF AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF LAND, 7/12 EXTRACT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OF THE ASSESSEE, COPIES OF SALE BILL OF JAGGERY OF SHRI V.K. CHOUGULE AND BANK ACCOUNT EXTRACTS. THE PARTIES FROM WHOM ADVANCES WERE PURPORTED LY TAKEN WERE ALSO PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION. DURING THE COURSE OF VERIFICATION, STATEMENT OF ONE SHRI RAHUL GANPATRAO GHORPADE WAS RECORDED ON 16 - 12 - 2010. SHRI R G GHORPADE HAD STATED THAT THE SOURCE OF ADVANCE MADE BY HIM AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS WAS THE LOAN OF RS.3 LAKHS EACH TAKEN FROM BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, GADMUDSHINGHI BRANCH ON 20 - 09 - 2007. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATIONS PROVIDED BY SHRI R G GHORPADE. SIMILARLY, THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY SHRI V K CHOUGULE WAS ALSO FOUND TO B E UNSATISFACTORY. SHRI V K CHOUGULE HAD STATED ON OATH THAT HE WAS HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME 3 ITA NO S. 751 & 848/PN/2012, DILIP RAMCHANDRA GHORPADE, KOLHAPUR ONLY AND HE STATED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.3 LAKHS WAS MADE OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, SHRI V K CHOUGULE FILED SALE PATTIES OF JAGG ERY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VERIFIED THE TRANSACTIONS OF JAGGERY SALES BY ISSUING SUMMONS TO ONE SHRI TUKARAM S PATIL TO WHOM THE JAGGERY WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN SOLD BY SHRI V K CHOUGULE. SHRI TUKARAM PATIL STATED THAT THESE PATTIES WERE NOT ISSUED BY HIM AND THAT HE HAD NOT PAID ANY AMOUNT IN RESPECT OF THE PATTIES FURNISHED BY SHRI V K CHOUGULE. THUS, THE SALE PATTIES BY SHRI V K CHOUGULE WERE FOUND TO BE INVALID AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE PURPORTED SOURCE OF AGRICULTURAL IN COME STATED BY SHRI V K CHOUGULE IS INCORRECT. 2.1 IN RESPECT OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF LAND DATED 20 - 11 - 2007, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE AGREEMENT IS MADE ON A STAMP PAPER OF RS. 100/ - ONLY, WHICH DOES NOT BEAR THE SEAL AND STAMP OF THE TREAS URY OFFICE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT THE STAMP PAPERS WERE PURCHASED FROM ICHALKARANJI, WHICH ACCORDING TO HIM RATHER STRANGE BECAUSE THERE ARE STAMP VENDORS IN KOLHAPUR ALSO. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT THESE FACTS WERE APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 26 - 11 - 2007 MADE FOR CANCELLATION OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF LAND. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE DOCUMENTS WERE FABRICATED TO SUIT THE SUBMISSION IN RESPECT OF THE CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IN RESPECT OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 5,53,500/ - , THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE REGARDING THE BUSINESS INCOME AND WORKING CAPITAL AS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE . THUS, AS STATED EARLIER, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 17,53,500/ - WAS ADDED AS UNEXPLAIN ED CASH U/S. 69B OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT. 3. WHEN THE MATTER REACHED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) , THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT OUT OF RS.12 LAKHS, RS.4,71,000/ - STANDS EXPLAINED. IN RESPECT OF BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.5,53,500/ - , THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT TO THE EXTENT 4 ITA NO S. 751 & 848/PN/2012, DILIP RAMCHANDRA GHORPADE, KOLHAPUR OF RS. 24,293/ - THE CASH DEPOSIT REMAINS TO BE UNEXPLAINED. AS HELD BY LD. CIT(A) THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT FUND AVAILABLE IN THE CASH BOOK TO EXPLAIN THE DEPOSIT. HE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT TO EXTEND OF RS.10,00,707/ - OUT OF RS.17,53,500/ - THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINE D THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSIT S . THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS UNDER: 8. I HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE APPELLANT AND I FIND THAT THE CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN CANARA BANK ON 01/07/2007 AND ON 20/11/2007. I ALSO FIND THAT SHRI TUKARAM PATIL HAD ADVANCES RS.3,41,500/ - TO SHRI V K CHOUGULE BETWEEN 17/10/2007 AND 20/11/2007. THE SALE PATTI RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT ISSUE IN THE NAME OF SHRI V K CHOUGULE IS DATED 12/01/2008 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,85,809/ - . IT WOULD THUS APPEAR THAT SHRI V K CHOUGULE PERHAPS HAD THE FUNDS WHICH WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR MAKING AN ADVANCE TO THE APPELLANT ON 20/11/2007. HOWEVER SIMULTANEOUSLY, IT WOULD ALSO BE UNREASONABLE TO INFER THAT DURING THIS PERIOD OF ONE MONTH, STARTING FROM 17/10/2007, SHRI V K CHOUGULE DID NOT UTILIZE ANY AMOUNT TOWARDS THE BUSINESS OF CONVERSION OF JAGGERY FROM SUGARCANE OR TO MAKE PAYMENTS TO OTHER PERSONS ON WHOSE BEHALF HE USED TO MANUFACTURE JAGGERY. THUS, IT WILL BE REASONABLE TO STATE THAT SOME A MOUNT OUT OF RS.3,41,500/ - AND NOT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS AVAILABLE WITH SHRI V K CHOUGULE TO MAKE AN ADVANCE TO THE APPELLANT. 9. IN RESPECT OF THE PAYMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY SHRI RAHUL GHORPADE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS, WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN THAT THE BANK OF MAHARASHTRA GADMUDSHINGHI BRANCH HAD SANCTIONED A SUM OF RS.3 LAKHS ON 20/09/2007 TO SHRI RAHUL GHORPADE, SHRI SANTOSH G GHORPADE AND SHRI GANPATI D GHORPADE. THE APPELLANT HAS PRODUCED THE BANK ACCOUNT EXTRACTS OF THESE THREE PERSONS AND PLACE IT ON RECO RD. IT IS SEEN THAT AGAINST THIS LOAN, SHRI SANTOSH GHORPADE HAD WITHDRAWN A SUM OF RS.1 LAKH EACH ON 20/09/2007 AND 03/11/2007. SIMILARLY, SHRI GANPATI D GHORPADE AND SHRI RAHUL GHORPADE HAD ALSO WITHDRAWN A SUM OF RS.1 LAKH EACH ON THESE TWO DATES. THUS, THE AMOUNT AVAILABLE WITH THE GHORPADE FAMILY ON OR BEFORE 20/11/2007 WAS RS.6 LAKHS ONLY AND NOT RS.9 LAKHS AS CONTENDED BY THE APPELLANT. 5 ITA NO S. 751 & 848/PN/2012, DILIP RAMCHANDRA GHORPADE, KOLHAPUR 10. A PERUSAL OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE REVEALS THAT THE GHORPADE FAMILY ALONG WITH SHRI V K CHOUGULE HAD ENTERED I NTO AN AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF A LAND BELONGING TO SHRI DILIP R GHORPADE FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.20 LAKHS. VIDE PARAGRAPH 4 OF THIS AGREEMENT IT IS STATED THAT EVERY PERSON HAD CONTRIBUTED A SUM OF RS.3 LAKHS EACH, AGGREGATING TO RS.12 LAKHS WHICH WAS PAID TO THE APPELLANT FROM TIME TO TIME. NOW THE DEPOSIT IN THE BANK HAS BEEN MADE BY THE APPELLANT ON 20/11/2007. THE APPELLANT WANTS THE DEPARTMENT TO BELIEVE THAT HE HAD KEPT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1 LAKHS EACH GIVEN ON 20/09/2007 BY THE GHORPADES TILL THE DA TE OF DEPOSIT IN THE BANK. IT IS ALSO NOT CLEAR AS TO WHY THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.3 LAKHS WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT AT ONE GO BY THE RAHUL G GHORPADE GROUP WHEN BANK OF MAHARASHTRA HAD SANCTIONED THE CREDIT OF RS.3 LAKHS EACH ON 20/09/2007 TO THE MEMB ERS OF THE GHORPADE FAMILY. ON THIS DATE, THE MEMBERS OF THE GHORPADE FAMILY HAD WITHDRAWN ONLY RS.3 LAKHS IN ALL. IT IS ALSO NOT CLEAR THAT ONCE THE AMOUNTS WERE BEING ROUTED THROUGH BANK ACCOUNT THEN WHY COULD THE SUM NOT TRANSFERRED TO THE APPELLANT BY WAY OF A DEMAND DRAFT OR CHEQUE. WHATEVER MAY BE THE REASON FOR NOT MAKING THE PAYMENT BY CHEQUE, IT SEEMS FARFETCHED AND UNREASONABLE TO ACCEPT DUE TO A FLUX OF TIME THAT THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN BY THE MEMBERS OF THE RAHUL GHORPADE FAMILY ON 20/09/2007 WAS G IVEN TO THE APPELLANT FOR THE STATED PURPOSE. SIMILARLY, IT WILL BE UNREASONABLE TO ACCEPT THAT THE AMOUNTS AVAILABLE WITH SHRI V K CHOUGULE IN THE MONTH OF OCTOBER WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN UTILIZED BY HIM FOR HIS OWN BUSINESS PURPOSES AND WAS KEPT TO BE GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT. I WOULD, THEREFORE, APPLY REASONABLE PROXIMITY OF DATES OF WITHDRAWAL OF FUNDS IN RELATION TO THE DATE OF DEPOSIT MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT HAS BEEN SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED OR NOT . ACCORDINGLY, THE AMOUNT AVAILABLE WITH SHRI V K CHOUGULE BETWEEN 05/11/2007 AND 20/11/2007 I.E. RS.1,71,500/ - IS THE AMOUNT WHICH WOULD BE REASONABLE INFERRED TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT. SIMILARLY, THE SUM TAKEN OUT ON 03/11/2007 BY THE MEMBERS OF RAHUL GHORPADE FAMILY, AGGREGATING TO RS.3 LAKHS WOULD BE THE SUM WHICH CAN BE REASONABLY ACCEPTED TO BE AVAILABLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT MADE BY THE APPELLANT ON 20/1 1/2007. THUS, OUT OF THE SUM OF RS.12 LAKHS ALLEGED TO H AVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM RAHUL GHORPADE FAMILY AND SHRI 6 ITA NO S. 751 & 848/PN/2012, DILIP RAMCHANDRA GHORPADE, KOLHAPUR V K CHOUGULE, I HOLD THAT ONLY A SUM OF RS.4,71,000/ - STANDS EXPLAINED. 11. IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.5,53,500/ - , THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN COPIES ENCASH BOOK FOR THE PERIOD 29/06/2007 TO 02/07/2007. IT SHOWS THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,05,000/ - WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE CANARA BANK SAVING BANK ACCOUNT FROM CASH BOOK ON 01/07/2007 WHEN THE BALANCE AVAILABLE WAS RS.3,71,493/ - . SIMILARLY, THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO GIVEN EXTRACTS OF CASH BOOK FOR THE PERIOD 19/11/ 2007 TO 21/11/2007. IT SHOWS THAT THE APPELLANT HAD AN OPENING CASH BALANCE OF RS.2,20,505/ - ON 20/11/2007. RECEIPTS FOR THE DAY WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 3 , 702/ - AGGREGATING TO RS.2,24,207/ - . THUS, THERE WAS SUFFICIENT FUNDS AVAILABLE IN CASH BOOK TO EXPLAIN THE DEPOSIT OF RS.2,24,207/ - . HENCE, THE DEPOSIT OF RS.24,293/ - OUT OF RS.5,53,500/ - REMAINS UNEXPLAINED. 12. THEREFORE, OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.17,53,500/ - , THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF RS.10,00,707/ - . THUS, THE AMOUNT OF RS.7,53,793/ - REMAINS UNEXPLAINED AND THIS AMOUNT IS CONFIRMED AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS UNDER SECTION 69B OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. NOW BOTH , THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD T HE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE IN RESPECT OF RS.12 LAKHS THAT IT WAS TOWARDS THE ADVANCES FROM SHRI RAHUL G. GHORPADE (RS.9 LAKHS) AND SHRI VIJAY KUMAR GHOUGULE (RS.3 LAKHS) TOWARDS THE SALE OF ASSESSEES LAND. HE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED THE SUMMONS TO THE PARTIES AND PARTIES APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AN D ALSO CON FIRMED THAT THEY HAVE PAID CASH TO THE ASSESSEE . HE ARGUES THAT THERE IS A DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE NATURE OF THE AGREEMENT TO SALE AND ONLY ON THE BASIS OF DOUBT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE SAID DOCUMENT . THE MA IN REASON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS T HAT 7 ITA NO S. 751 & 848/PN/2012, DILIP RAMCHANDRA GHORPADE, KOLHAPUR THE STAMP PAPER WAS NOT PURCHASED IN KOLHAPUR BUT IT WAS PURCHASED IN ICHALKARANJI. HE SUBMITS THAT WHEN BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE AFFIRMED THAT THEY HAVE GIVEN THE ADVANCES TO THE ASSESSEE THEN AGAIN THE ASSES SING OFFICER CAN BE PUT FURTHER BURDEN ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF THE SOURCE. HE ARGUES THAT SHRI V.K. CHOUGULE IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF JAGGERY AND ALSO IN THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY. THE ASSESSEE HAS NO OCCASION ED TO CROSS EXAMINE SHRI TUKARAM PATIL AND IT IS CERTAINLY SURPRISING THAT WHY HE HAS DENIED HAVING PAID MONEY TO SHRI V K CHOUGULE. HE REFERRED TO COMPILATION AND SUBMITS THAT THE SALE PATTI ES IN RESPECT OF SALE TO SHRI TUKARAM PATIL PROVE THAT SHRI V K CHOUGULE HAS SOLD JAGGER Y TO HIM. HE SUBMITS THAT THE ENTIRE ADDITION IS BASED ON THE SUSPICION AND SURMISES AND MAY BE DELETED. IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION SUSTAINED RS.24,293/ - HE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT CASH BALANCE AND LD. CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THAT THEN THERE IS NO REASON TO SUSTAIN RS.24,293/ - . 5. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE VEHEMENTLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DETAIL INVESTIGATION AND THEN ONLY MADE THE ADDITION. THERE IS A FAILURE ON THE PART OF T HE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE SOURCE. 6. IN THIS CASE, THE FACTS ARE NARRATED HERE - IN - ABOVE . T HERE WAS A CASH DEPOSIT S IN THE BANK OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE CANARA BANK ARE TOWARDS THE ADVANCE RECEIVED FOR SALE OF THE ASSESSEES LAND . T HE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODU CED THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF AGREEMENT TO SALE. ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS SEEN THAT BOTH THE PARTIES APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED THAT THEY HAVE GIVEN THE ADVANCES TO THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR OPINION IDEN TITY AS WELL AS THE SOURCE IS EXPLAINED IN RESPECT OF THE DEPOSIT S OF RS.12 LAKHS. SO FAR AS THE DOUBT RAISED BY BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN RESPECT OF AVAILABILITY OF THE SAID CASH WITH THOSE 8 ITA NO S. 751 & 848/PN/2012, DILIP RAMCHANDRA GHORPADE, KOLHAPUR PARTIES , I N OUR OPINION THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE TA KEN THE APPROPRIATE PROCEEDING S AGAINST THOSE TWO PERSONS IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ANY DOUBT ON THE CASH PAYMENTS MADE TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PUT TASK OF EXPLAINING SOURCE OF THE SOURCE. 7. THE ANOTHER ASPECT TO BE CONSIDERED IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RAISED THE DOUBT IN RESPECT OF THE STAMP PAPER WHICH APPEARS TO BE PURCHASED AT ICHALKARANJI AND NOT IN KOLHAPUR. IN OUR OPINION THERE MAY BE DIFFERENT REASONS WHY THE STAMP PAPER IS PURCHASED IN ICHALKARANJI. THE ASSESSEE MAY BE VISIT ING THE ICHALKARANJI OR THE OTHER PARTIES MAY BE ALSO HAVING SOME CONNECTION WITH ICHALKARANJI. UNLESS AND UNTIL THE STAMP PAPER IS PROVED AS A BOGUS BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY , T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED FOR EXPRESSING HIS OPINI ON ON PLACE OF PURCHASE. I N OUR OPINION THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION OF RS. 7,29,000/ - OUT OF RS.12 LAKHS. WE, ACCORDINGLY, DELETE THE ENTIRE ADDITION. 8. SO FAR AS THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(A) OF RS.24,293/ - OUT OF RS.5,53,5 00/ - I.E. CASH AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR OPINION THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) DOES NOT REQUIRE IN INTERFERENCE AS HE HAS EXAMINED THE CASH BOOK AND RELEVANT FACTS ARE GIVEN IN PARA NO. 11 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. WE, ACCORDINGLY, CONFIRM THE ORDER O F LD. CIT(A) AND PARTLY SUSTAINING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.24,293/ - . IN RESULT, ON THE ADDITION OF RS.17,53,500/ - RELEVANT GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND REVENUES GROUND S ARE DISMISSED. 9. THE NEXT ISSUE IS THE ADDITION OF R S.10,64,985/ - MADE U/S. 69C OUT OF WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,88, 328/ - . ON THIS ISSUE BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT ON VERIFICATION OF THE EXTRACT S OF CC ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. A/C. NO. 607/575 OF THE COMMERCIAL CO - 9 ITA NO S. 751 & 848/PN/2012, DILIP RAMCHANDRA GHORPADE, KOLHAPUR OPERATIVE BANK , I T IS NOTICED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS REPAID LOAN AMOUNT OF RS.10,64,985/ - , DURING THE PERIOD 11 - 08 - 2007 TO 14 - 08 - 2007. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE T HE ADDITION OF RS.10,64,985/ - ON THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY EXPLANATION OF THE SOURCE. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) , THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ENTIRE BANK ACCOUNT IS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE PRODUCED B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND NO QUESTIONS WERE ASKED TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE SOURCE OF THE REPAYMENT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTENDED THAT SEC. 69C IS IN VOKED ONLY IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE AND NOT IN RESPECT OF REPAYMENT OF LOANS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINED THAT HE HAS AVAILED A CASH CREDIT LOAN FROM COMMERCIAL CO - OPERATIVE BANK FOR RS. 10 LAKHS AND ALL THE BANK ACCOUNTS AND TRANSACTIONS ARE DULLY REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08. THE LD. CIT(A) EXAMINED THE CONTENTION OF THE AS SESSEE AS WELL AS THE BANK EXTRACT AND HELD THAT ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,88,328/ - THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE. HE, ACCORDINGLY, DELETED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.8,76,657/ - AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,88,328/ - . 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT NOWHERE IT IS DISPUTED THAT BANK ACCOUNT IS REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET THEN HOW THE BALANCE SHEET IS TALLIED IF THERE IS NO PROPER SOURCE. WE FIND FORCE I N THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUC ED THE EXTRACT OF THE CASH BOOK. ON THE BASIS OF WHICH LD. CIT(A) HAS WORKED OUT THE EXPLAINED AND UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS. IN OUR UNDERSTANDING IF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE MAINTAINED AND BALANCE SHEET IS PREPARED THEN THE BANK ACCOUNT CANNOT BE HALF WAY BUT IT HAS TO BE FULLY REFLECTED. ONCE THE LD. CIT(A) IS ACCEPTED THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT IS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AT LEAST HE SHOULD HAVE EXPLAINED WHERE 10 ITA NO S. 751 & 848/PN/2012, DILIP RAMCHANDRA GHORPADE, KOLHAPUR FRO M RS.1,88,328/ - HOW ARE INTRODUCED IN THE CASH BOOK. WE FIND THAT IN OUR OPINION THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION OF RS.1,88,328/ - . WE, ACCORDINGLY, DELETE THE SAME. 11. SO FAR AS THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS CONCERNED, IN RESPECT OF DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.8,76,657/ - FOR THE REASONS GIVEN HERE - IN - ABOVE, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE PREMISES THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT IS DULLY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET. WE HAVE ALREADY DELETED THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED ON THIS ISSUE AND ASSESSEES GROUND IS ALLOWED. 12. THE NEXT ISSUE IS ADDITION OF RS.17,500/ - TOWARDS THE SALES PROCEEDS OF EMPTY BOTTLES AND THIS GROUND IS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. NO SERIOUS ARGUMENT WAS ADVANCED BY THE LD. COUNSEL ON THIS ISSUE. IN OUR OPINION NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, SAME IS CONFIRM AND GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . GROUND NOS. 6 AND 7 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE. 14. GROUND NO. 9 OF THE REVENUE IS IN RESPECT OF DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,89,005/ - MADE U/S. 69B. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ACCOUNT EXTRACT OF A/C. NO. 200/197 WAS EXAMINED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER AND IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED RS.1 LAKH IN THE SAID ACCOUNT ON 17 - 03 - 2008 AND RS.89,005/ - ON 03 - 10 - 2007. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION BY GIVING THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF THOSE PAYMENTS. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE DEMONSTRATED THAT ALL THOSE PAYMENTS ARE DULLY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER EXAMINING THE 11 ITA NO S. 751 & 848/PN/2012, DILIP RAMCHANDRA GHORPADE, KOLHAPUR CONTENTION OF THE ASSES SEE AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION. 1 5 . WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE . W HEN THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND BANK ACCOUNT IS ALSO DULLY REFLECTED ALO NG WITH ALL THE TRANSACTIONS. THERE CANNOT BE HALF WAY TO REFLECT THE BANK ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. AFTER EXAMINING THE REASON GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN OUR OPINION NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND N O. 9 IS DISMISSED. 1 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 - 0 1 - 201 5 SD/ - SD/ - ( G . S . PAN NU ) ( R.S. PADVEKAR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED : 30 TH JANUARY, 2015 RK/PS COPY TO 1 ASSESSEE 2 DEPARTMENT 3 THE CIT(A) , KOLHAPUR 4 THE CIT - I /II, KOLHAPUR 5 6 THE DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTA NT REGISTRAR , INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PUNE