Shri Shivram Ramchanddas Patel, Unjha V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Patan

ITA 860/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5330 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SONIA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: KETAN H SHAH
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Source of fund
• Section: 40A(3); 131; 144

Judgement Text

SMC-ITA NO. 860/AHD/2015 SHIVRAM RAMCHANDDAS PATEL VS. ITO AY : 2006-07 PAGE 1 OF 7 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD [ BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ITA NO. 860/AHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SHIVRAM RAMCHANDDAS PATEL ............APPEL LANT C/O. VINAYAK KANTILAL, 19, MARKET YARD, UNJHA-384 170 [PAN : APYPP 8049 P] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER .......................RESPONDENT WARD-2, PATAN APPEARANCES BY: KETAN H SHAH, FOR THE APPELLANT SONIA KUMAR, FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 12.10.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 15.10.2018 O R D E R 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HA S CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF ORDER DATED 22 ND JANUARY 2015 PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCO ME-TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. GRIEVANCES RAISED BY THE APPELLANT ARE AS FOLLOW S:- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS. 18,26,730/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AS IT IN VOLVED (I) INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL PRODUCES WHICH CANNOT BE DENIED WHEN A LL THE MEMBERS IN THE FAMILY ARE AGRICULTURISTS AND HOLD LAND WITH THEM ( II) GIFT FROM RELATIVE WHO HAD INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE AND (III) LOANS RECEIVE D FROM RELATIVES AND FRIENDS WHO WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESS ING OFFICER AND THE AMOUNTS LENT BY EACH ONE WAS WELL WITHIN THEIR MEAN S OF EARNINGS. SMC-ITA NO. 860/AHD/2015 SHIVRAM RAMCHANDDAS PATEL VS. ITO AY : 2006-07 PAGE 2 OF 7 3. LEARNED COUNSEL BEGINS WITH A PRELIMINARY OBJECT ION WITH RESPECT TO MECHANICAL APPROVAL TO THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT, AS GRANTED BY THE COMMISSIONER ON THE SAME DAY, AS THE DATE ON WHICH REOPENING PROPOSAL WAS SENT, BY SIMPLY OBSERVING YES, I AM SATISFIED . HE URGES ME TO CONSIDER THIS LEGAL PLEA FIRST, AND RELIES UPON HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COU RTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF GERMAN REMEDIES LTD VS. DCIT [(2006) 287 ITR 494 (B OM)] WHICH IS CLAIMED TO COVER THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. HAVING HEARD THE PARTIES AND HAVING PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, I AM NOT INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESS EE ON MERITS. THE MERE FACT THAT THE APPROVAL WAS GRANTED BY THE CIT ON THE SAME DAY DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THE APPROVAL IS GRANTED IN A MECHANICAL MANNER WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND. LEARNED CIT HAS OBSERVED THAT YES, I AM SATISFIED . AS REGARDS THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENT IN THE CASE OF GERMAN REMEDIES (SUPRA), L EARNED CIT HAD MERELY OBSERVED YES AND THE APPROVAL WAS GRANTED IMMEDIA TELY ON THE SAME DAY AND AT THE SAME MOMENT, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER. I SEE NO HELP TO THE ASSESSEE, BY THIS JUDICIAL PRECEDENT IN THE PRESENT CASE. I, THEREFORE, REJECT THIS OBJECTION. 5. TO ADJUDICATE ON THE GROUND OF APPEAL, ON MERITS , ONLY A FEW MATERIAL FACTS NEED TO BE TAKEN NOTE OF. THE ANNUAL INFORMATION R EPORT FILED BY THE BANK SHOWED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.21,5 3,730/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, THE CASE WAS REOPENED AND THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE SAID INFORMATION. THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE WITH THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, ADJUSTING CASH DEPOSIT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,32,000/- OUT OF WITHDRAWS ON 05.12.2005, THE ASSESSING OFFICER BROU GHT TO TAX RS.18,27,061/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARR IED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. LEARNED CIT(A), IN A VERY ELABORATE AND WELL REASONED ORDER, REITERATED THE STAND OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AND JUSTIFIED THE SAME AS FOLLOWS:- 5.4 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ASSES SMENT ORDER, SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT, REMAND REPORT AND REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPELLANT. AFTER CAREFULLY CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION, REMAND REPORT AND REJOINDER AS IS REPRODUCED IN THE PARAS ABOVE, THE ISSUES IN HAND ARE DISCUSSED AND DECIDED IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS: THE AO'S CONTENTION IN THE REMAND REPORT CAN BE SUM MARIZED AS UNDER: > NUMEROUS OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT BOTH DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ALSO DURING THE REMAND P ROCEEDINGS. BUT, NO DETAILS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM. > IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMONS ISSUED U/S 131 OF THE ACT TO SHRI VINAYKUMAR KANTILAL CHOKSI, NOBODY ATTENDED THE OFFICE OF THE AO NOR FILED ANY DETAILS. AS SUCH THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE AGRICULTUR AL SALE OF THE ASSESSES HAVE BEEN NOT VERIFIED FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF SHRI VINAYKUMAR KANTILAL CHOKSHI. SMC-ITA NO. 860/AHD/2015 SHIVRAM RAMCHANDDAS PATEL VS. ITO AY : 2006-07 PAGE 3 OF 7 > ALSO NO DETAILS CALLED FOR LIKE COPY OF PAN, DET AILS OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND SOURCE OF INCOME DURING THE FY 2004-05 TO 2007- 08.; COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME AND STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME FOR A.Y. 20 05-06 TO 2007-08 AND COPY OF ALL BANK STATEMENTS FOR A.Y. 2006-07. APPEL LANT DID NOT SUBMIT THE INCOME & EXPENDITURE STATEMENT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. > THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE SALES AMOUNT IN THE CA SH FLOW STATEMENT WITHOUT ANY EXPENSES DEBITED TOWARDS TH E AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. > AGRICULTURE LAND IS JOINTLY HELD WITH HIS BROTHE R BUT ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY SHARE FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO HIS BROTHER O N SALE OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. > AS AGAINST THE PREVALENT PRACTICE THAT AUCTION IS HELD IN THE APMC MARKET AND THE HIGHER BIDDER WINS THE AUCTION, IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT ALL THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE IS SOLD TO ONLY ,, ONE FIRM I. E. VINAYKUMAR KANTILAL CHOKSI. > THE SALE BILLS ARE FABRICATED AND WERE MADE LATER ON TO EYEWASH THE DEPARTMENT > THAT SHRI VINAYKUMKAR KANTILAL CHOKSI IS THE EMPL OYER OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO WORKS AS AN ACCOUNTANT > SHRI VINAYKUMAR K. CHOKSI WHO HAD PURCHASED THE A GRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND ISSUED BILLS FAILED TO PRODUCE HIS BILL BOO KS, COUNTERFOIL OF THE BILLS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THE ASSESSEE SINCE WORKING AS AN ACCOUNTANT COULD EASILY OBTAIN FALSE AND FABRICATED BILLS. > IT IS MANDATORY IN THE CASE OF GIFT THAT PROPER GIFT DEED SHOULD BE MADE ON STAMP PAPER AND SIGN OF THE DONOR AND THE DONEE AND THE WITNESSES SHOULD BE OBTAINED. IN THE PRESENT CASE NO SUCH DEE D IS THERE NOR IS IT AS PER LAW. > FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED GIFT IN CASH A ND NOT A SINGLE PAISA HAS BEEN RECEIVED IN CHEQUE OR THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. > THE DONOR HAS STATED IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/ S 131 OF THE ACT STATED THAT HE HAS NO AGRICULTURAL LAND OF HIS OWN BUT WOR KS WITH HIS MOTHER AND FATHER. THE SALE BILLS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE ARE ALL IN THE NAME OF HIS MOTHER. THEREFORE, NO PROOF SHOWING THAT SUCH HUGE AMOUNT OF RS.4,00,000/- WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE SON OF THE ASS ESSEE TO GIVE IT TO HIS FATHER AS GIFT. THEREFORE, CAPACITY OF SHRI JAYESH SHIVRAMBHAI PATEL SON OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT HE HA S GIVEN THE GIFT TO HIS FATHER AND GENUINENESS OF SOURCE OF GIFT. > MOST OF THE LABOURERS WORKING IN THE APMC MARKET UNJHA AND HAVING NO BANK ACCOUNT. ALL DEPOSITORS ARE NOT FILING THEI R RETURN OF INCOME AND ALSO HAVING NO PAN. SMC-ITA NO. 860/AHD/2015 SHIVRAM RAMCHANDDAS PATEL VS. ITO AY : 2006-07 PAGE 4 OF 7 > ALL THE LOANS HAVE BEEN TAKEN AND REPAID THROUGH CASH ONLY. THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT CAN BE SUMMARIZED A S UNDER: > JAYESH S. PATEL HAD APPEARED BEFORE THE AO IN RE SPONSE TO THE SUMMONS AND IN HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED HE HAD CO NFIRMED THE TRANSACTIONS. > IT IS NOT MANDATORY TO EXECUTE A GIFT DEED AND ESPECIALLY WHEN BOTH THE PARTIES ARE CLOSELY RELATED AS FATHER AND SON. > NO CONTRARY MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO . > APPELLANT HAD DISCHARGED BURDEN BY PRODUCING EVI DENCE SUCH AS CONFIRMATION LETTER, IDENTITY PROOF ETC. AND AO HAS MADE NO ATTEMPT TO DISPROVE THE SAME. NO ADVERSE INFERENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DRAWN BY THE AO. AFTER CAREFULLY CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS AS ABOVE, SO FAR AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS CONCERNED, NO EVIDENCES WHATSOEVER HAVE B EEN PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT EITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR REMAND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO. NEITHER HAS SUCH DETAILS BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, MOR EOVER, IT IS PERUSED THAT APPELLANT'S FAMILY MEMBERS ARE AGRICULTURISTS AND H AS LANDHOLDING OF NOT MORE THAN 20 BIGHAS IN WHICH THE TOTAL AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS SHOWN OF RS.14,87,543/- IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND FROM THE SAME AGRICULTURAL LAND, APPELLANT'S WIFE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE GIVEN GI FT TO HIS SON TO THE TUNE OF RS.4,50,000/-. THUS, TOTAL AGRICULTURAL INCOME COME S TO RS.19,37,543/- FROM 20 BIGHA LAND. APART FROM THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE AO THAT APPELLANT IS NOT ASSESSED TO TAX, NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME DISCLOS ING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN EARLIER YEARS OR SUBSEQUENT YEARS. EVEN THIS FAC T IS ACCEPTED BY THE APPELLANT AND HAS SHOWN HIS INABILITY TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL EXPENDITURE MADE BY HIM TO EARN THE AGRICULTURAL IN COME BY ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCES WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE SPENT UPTO 40%; I N THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, SUCH EXPENDITURE CAN BE WORKED OUT TO RS .7,75,016/-; AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE JURISDICTIONAL AHMEDABAD ITAT IN M ANY CASES. SUCH EVIDENCES HAS NOT BEEN PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS WELL AS EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING SUCH AGRI CULTURAL INCOME. THE CONTENTION OF THE AO IS THAT SALE OF AGRICULTURAL P RODUCE RECEIPTS FROM VINAYKUMAR KANTILAL CHOKSI APPEARS TO BE FABRICATED AS CONTENDED BY THE AO AS APPELLANT IS PROVIDING HIS SERVICES TO VINAYK UMAR KANTILAL CHOKSI AS AN ACCOUNTANT. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT EVERY TIME TH E AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE IS SOLD TO VINAYKUMAR KANTILAL CHOKSI, FROM WHOM HE HA S OBTAINED AGRICULTURAL SALE BILLS IN PHASES, THROUGHOUT THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06. IT IS AGAINST THE PRACTICE IN APMC MARKET WHEN AGRICULTURIST SELL THE IR COMMODITIES TO HIGHEST BIDDER OF THEIR GOODS. THIS ARGUMENT OF THE AO IS NOT REBUTTED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THI S VIEW OF THE AO IS WELL SUPPORTED BY THE REMAND 'IMPORT THAT SHRI VINAYKUMA R KANTILAL CHOKSI WAS SMC-ITA NO. 860/AHD/2015 SHIVRAM RAMCHANDDAS PATEL VS. ITO AY : 2006-07 PAGE 5 OF 7 SUMMONED U/S 131 TO ASCERTAIN THE GENUINENESS OF TH E BILLS WHICH WERE OBTAINED BY THE APPELLANT. SHRI VINAYKUMAR KANTILAL CHOKSI CHOSE NOT TO ATTEND BEFORE THE AO. NO COUNTERFOIL OF BILLS OR BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS OR OTHER EVIDENCES WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO BY VINAYKUMAR KA NTILAL CHOKSI. THE AO HAD VERY CATEGORICALLY ASKED SHRI VINAYKUMAR KANTIL AL CHOKSI TO PRODUCE BEFORE-HIM COPY OF PAN, DETAILS OF BUSINESS ACTIVIT IES, SOURCES OF INCOME FOR FY 2004-05 TO 2007-08, COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME AND STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME FOR AY 2005-06 TO 2007-08 AND COPY OF ALL BA NK STATEMENTS FOR AY 2006-07. AS REPORTED BY THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT SHRI VINAYKUMAR KANTILAL CHOKSI NEITHER ATTENDED BEFORE HIM NOR ANY SUBMISSION HAS BEEN MADE TILL THE FINALIZATION OF REMAND REPORT. THE ON LY CONCLUSION THAT CAN BE DRAWN IN THIS REGARD IS THAT THE SO CALLED AGRICULT URAL BILLS OBTAINED BY THE APPELLANT ARE BOGUS AND AS SUCH NO AGRICULTURAL PRO DUCE WAS CULTIVATED IN THE SMALL PIECE OF LAND IS CLAIMED TOTALING TO RS. 19,37,543/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. IT IS ALSO TO BE NOTED THAT APPELLANT IS WORKING IN A SMALL FIRM VIZ. VINAYKUMAR KANTILAL CHOKSI AS AN ACCOUNTANT AN D HE IS WELL AWARE OF THE LEGAL SERIOUSNESS OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO AND EVEN HE HAS NOT ADVISED HIS EMPLOYER TO ATTEND BEFORE THE AO. T HEREFORE, THE CONTENTION MADE BY THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AND IS HER EBY CONFIRMED. WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF GIFT RECEIVED BY THE AP PELLANT FROM HIS SON OF RS.4,00,000/-, AS IS DISCUSSED IN ABOVE PARAGRAPHS, THIS IS UNACCOUNTED CASH OF THE APPELLANT WHICH IS STATED TO BE GIFT OF RS.4,40,000/- FROM SHRI JAYESH PATEL WHO HAS CLAIMED IN THE STATEMENT RECOR DED THAT HE HAS GIVEN THIS GIFT WHICH IS EARNED FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME. AS IS DISCUSSED HEREIN ABOVE PARAGRAPHS, THERE IS LESS THAN 20 BIGHA OF LA ND AND DONOR IS CLAIMING IT TO, BE GIFT. APART FROM THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY TH E AO THAT APPELLANT IS NOT ASSESSED TO TAX, NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME DISCLOS ING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN EARLIER YEARS OR SUBSEQUENT YEARS. EVEN THIS FAC T IS ACCEPTED BY THE APPELLANT AND HAS SHOWN HIS INABILITY TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL EXPENDITURE MADE BY HIM TO EARN THE AGRICULTURAL IN COME BY ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCES WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE SPENT UPTO 40%; I N THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, SUCH EXPENDITURE CAN BE WORKED OUT TO RS .7,75,016/-; AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE JURISDICTIONAL AHMEDABAD ITAT IN M ANY CASES. SUCH EVIDENCES HAS NOT BEEN PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS WELL AS EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING SUCH AGRI CULTURAL INCOME. THE CONTENTION OF THE AO IS THAT SALE OF AGRICULTURAL P RODUCE RECEIPTS FROM VINAYKUMAR KANTILAL CHOKSI APPEARS TO BE FABRICATED AS CONTENDED BY THE AO AS APPELLANT IS PROVIDING HIS SERVICES TO VINAYK UMAR KANTILAL CHOKSI AS AN ACCOUNTANT. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT EVERY TIME TH E AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE IS SOLD TO VINAYKUMAR KANTILAL CHOKSI, FROM WHOM HE HA S OBTAINED AGRICULTURAL SALE BILLS IN PHASES, THROUGHOUT THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06. IT IS AGAINST THE PRACTICE IN APMC MARKET WHEN AGRICULTURIST SELL THE IR COMMODITIES TO HIGHEST BIDDER OF THEIR GOODS. THIS ARGUMENT OF THE AO IS NOT REBUTTED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE CONTENTION OF THE AO IS NOTHING BUT A COLOURFUL TECHNIQUE ADOPTED BY THE AP PELLANT AS JAYESH PATEL IS NOT HAVING ANY AGRICULTURAL LAND IN HIS NAME. TH E ADDITION ON THIS GROUND MADE IS THEREFORE CONFIRMED. SMC-ITA NO. 860/AHD/2015 SHIVRAM RAMCHANDDAS PATEL VS. ITO AY : 2006-07 PAGE 6 OF 7 FURTHER, WITH REGARD TO THE DEPOSITS OJ RS.1,53,100 /- CLAIMED TO BE RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM FRIENDS AND RELATIVES, THE AO HAS RECORDED STATEMENTS OF ALL THE PERSONS AND HE HAS VERY SPECIFICALLY ASK ED THE DEPOSITS THE FOLLOWING DETAILS: 1) COPY OF PAN CARD. 2) DETAILS OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND SOURCE OF INCOM E DURING THE FY 2004-05 TO 2007-08. 3) COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME AND STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME FOR A.Y. 2005-06 TO 2007-08 4) COPY OF TRADING A/C, P&L A/C, BALANCE SHEET AND CAPITAL ACCOUNT FOR AY 2006-07 5) COPY OF ALL BANK STATEMENTS FOR A.Y. 2006-07 AO HAS STATED THAT ALL THE DEPOSITS ATTENDED BEFORE THE AO BUT DID NOT FURNISH ANY DETAILS WHICH WERE REQUIRED AND CALLED FOR AND THEY ATTENDED ONLY TO TESTIFY THE DEPOSITS AS GENUINE. BUT, IT IS FOUND THAT DEPOSITS WERE GIVEN IN CASH AND ALL BELOW RS.20,000/- TO NULLIFY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF INCOME-TAX. FURTHER, THE AO HAS REPORTED THAT THESE PERSONS ARE WORKING AS LABOURERS IN APMC AND IT IS BEYOND THEIR CAPACITY TO PAY SUCH DEPOSITS WHO IS EMPLOYED AS AN ACCOUNTANT IN THE FI RM VINAYKUMAR KANTILAL CHOKSI. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS, APPELL ANT HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE WITH EVIDENCES THE SOURCE OF INTRODUCT ION OF CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT BY WAY OF CLAIMING AGRICULTURAL INCOME, GIF TS AND BORROWINGS FROM FRIENDS AND RELATIVES . IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO MEN TION HERE THAT APPELLANT HAS NOT SUBMITTED BEFORE ME ANY NEW EVIDENCES OTHER THA N WHAT WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO, WHICH HAS BEEN VERIFIED BY HIM BEFOR E ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION AS HAS BEEN REPORTED IN THE REMAND REPOR T. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKIN G ADDITION OF RS.18,26,730/- IS HELD JUSTIFIED AND IS HEREBY CONF IRMED. THE RELEVANT GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. 6. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE ME. 7. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE AP PLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 8. I FIND THAT THERE ARE NO ARGUMENTS BEFORE ME TO DISLODGE THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). ALL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED IS THA T THE LENDERS HAVE CATEGORICALLY CONFIRMED THE FACT OF GIVING LOANS, AND, FOR THAT R EASON, THESE CREDITS SHOULD BE HELD TO BE GENUINE. AS REGARDS THE ALLEGED GIFT OF RS.4,00,000 AND ACCUMULATED PAST SAVINGS WHICH ARE ALLEGED TO BE RS.14,87,543, LEARNED COUNSEL HAS MAINLY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE CONTENTIONS BEFORE THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW AND REITERATED THE SAME. NONE OF THESE SUBMISSIONS, HOWEVER, MAKE MUC H SENSE. AS REGARDS THE ALLEGED GIFT OF RS.4,00,000/- AND ALLEGED BORROWING S OF RS.1,53,100/- FROM FRIENDS AND RELATIVES, I SEE NO REASONS TO DEVIATE FROM THE WELL REASONED FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) WHICH HAVE REMAINED UNCONTROVERTED. I APPRO VE THE SAME. HOWEVER, AS REGARDS THE CLAIM OF RS.14,87,543/- AS ACCUMULATED SAVINGS AND AGRICULTURAL SMC-ITA NO. 860/AHD/2015 SHIVRAM RAMCHANDDAS PATEL VS. ITO AY : 2006-07 PAGE 7 OF 7 INCOME, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WA S HAVING SOME AGRICULTURAL INCOME, AN AMOUNT OF RS.5,00,000/- CAN AT BEST BE T REATED AS EXPLAINED. TO THIS EXTENT, I UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, I UPHOLD THE A DDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.13,26,730/- AND DELETE THE ADDITION TO THE EXTEN T OF RS.5,00,000/-. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 15 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018. SD/- PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, THE 15 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018 **BT COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: ... ORDER PREPARED AS PER 6 PAGES MANUSCRIPTS OF HONBLE AM, WHICH ARE ATTACHED HEREWITH-15.10.18 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 15.10.2018...... 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR . P.S./P.S.: ... 15.10.2018..... 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: .. 15.10.2018.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK : . 15.10.2018. 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK : . 7. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 8. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: ......