Harish Chander, Yamunanagar V. ITO, Yamunanagar

ITA 91/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90212 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Assessee Lawyers: B M MAN GA
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Wrong claim
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 133(6); 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 91/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SHRI HARISH CHANDER, V THE ITO, HOUSE NO. 330, WARD 2, SARANI CHOWK, YAMUNA NAGAR. YAMUNA NAGAR. PAN: ACVPC1976A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI B.M. MANGA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 07.07.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.07.2015 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) PANCHKULA DATED 18.11.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, CHALLENGING THE ADDITION O F RS. 33,44,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, YAMU NA NAGAR AND CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN CONFIRMING THE EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME AT RS. 1,63,970/-. THIS CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS TO EXAMINE THE S OURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT AS PER AIR 2 INFORMATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AT THE I NCOME OF RS. 35,07,970/- AFTER MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 33,44,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS . 3. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER NOTED THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 16.08.2012 FOR COMPLIANCE ON 27.08.20 12. THE COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE FILED THE POWER OF ATTORNE Y ON THAT DATE. FURTHER NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) WAS ISSUED ON 29.04.2013 WHICH WAS COMPLIED WITH. FURTHER NOT ICES UNDER SECTION 142(1) ALONGWITH QUESTIONNAIRE AND 14 3(2) WERE ISSUED ON 19.07.2013 FOR COMPLIANCE ON 09.08.2 013. HOWEVER, NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE. FURTHER NOTICE WA S ISSUED WHY PENALTY BE NOT IMPOSED FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH THE NOTICES. THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 07.10.2013 BUT NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN VIE W OF THE NON COOPERATIVE ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE, ISSUE D NOTICE ON 25.11.2013 AS TO WHY BEST JUDGEMENT ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT BE NOT PASSED. THE CO UNSEL ATTENDED AND AGAIN SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT. ON THE REQUE ST OF THE ASSESSEE, CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 08.01.2014. TH E ASSESSEE WAS INFORMED THAT IT IS LAST OPPORTUNITY A ND NO FURTHER ADJOURNMENT WOULD BE POSSIBLE. ON 08.01.20 14, COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED BUT AGAIN SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT ON THE PLEA THAT HIS ACCOUNTANT WAS NOT FEELING WELL. ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE CASE WAS AGAIN ADJOURNMENT TO 15.01.2014 BUT NO INFORMATION WAS 3 FURNISHED. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THEREFORE, FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF B EING HEARD AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. THE ASSESSEE DESPIT E GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES HAS FAILED TO EXPLA IN SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS ON VARIOUS DATES IN THE SAVING BAN K ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK. SINC E ASSESSEE DID NOT COOPERATE AND NO SOURCE OF THE CAS H DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS EXPLAINED, THEREFOR E, LD. CIT(APPEALS) JUSTIFIED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER IN PASSING EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND DISMISSED THIS GROUND OF APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTED THAT AS PER AIR INFORMATION, ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, NEW GRAIN MARKET , YAMUNA NAGAR. THE COPY OF THIS ACCOUNT WAS OBTAINE D BY ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE BANK UNDER SECTION 133(6 ) OF THE ACT. THE DETAILS OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THIS ACCO UNT ARE MENTIONED AT PAGE 2 AND 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWING ON VARIOUS DATES, ASSESSEE MADE CASH DEPOSI TS IN THIS BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE FILED AUDIT REPORT BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER IN WHICH IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT AS SESSEE IS A TRADER OF CEMENT/SARIA. ON PERUSAL OF THE BAL ANCE SHEET FURNISHED WITH THE AUDIT REPORT, IT WAS NOTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING CC LIMIT ACCOUNT WITH PUNJ AB NATIONAL BANK AND CURRENT ACCOUNT WITH STATE BANK O F 4 INDIA AND ANOTHER ACCOUNT WITH UCO BANK. EXCEPT THE SE BANK ACCOUNTS, NO OTHER BANK ACCOUNT WAS REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THEREFORE, THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, YAMUNA NAGAR WAS FOUND TO BE UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSE E. THE ASSESSEE HAS NO EXPLANATION REGARDING SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THIS BANK ACCOUNT. DUE TO THIS RE ASON, ASSESSEE WAS SEEKING ADJOURNMENTS ONLY. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION OF THE S OURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS WITH THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, YAMUNA NAGAR, MADE ADDITION OF RS. 33,44,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT. 5. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT CASH DEPOSIT IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, YAMU NA NAGAR IS OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS WHICH IS EXPLAINED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), HOWEVER, CONSI DERING FACTS OF THE CASE AND THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLA IN SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THAT NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM, CONFI RMED ADDITION AND DISMISSED APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. HIS FINDINGS IN PARA 5.3 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER ARE REP RODUCED AS UNDER : 5.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS NOTED THAT TH E APPELLANT IS A TRADER OF CEMENT/SERIA AND BASED ON HIS TURNOVE R, ITS 5 ACCOUNT ARE AUDITED. THE AUDIT REPORT WAS ALSO FURN ISHED BEFORE THE AO. THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH PU NJAB NATIONAL BANK, YAMUNA NAGAR IS NOT REFLECTED IN THE AUDITED REPORT WHERE THE APPELLANT'S OTHER BANK ACCOUNTS WI TH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, STATE BANK OF INDIA AND UCO BANK ARE REFLECTED. THIS SHOWS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MAINTAINED AN UND ISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT AND HAS BEEN UNABLE TO EXPLAIN WITH PR OPER EVIDENCES REGARDING SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAD SUBMITTED THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WAS OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS AND EXPLAINED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO STATED IN THE LETTER SUBMITTED BEFO RE ME OF ACCOUNTS ARE PRODUCED FOR MY VERIFICATION. NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS PRODUCED BEFORE ME AND THE APPELLANT HAS MADE AN ATTEMPT TO MISLEAD THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY BY WRITING SUCH SENTENCE IN ITS LETTER SUBMITTED BEFORE ME. FURTHER, TH E APPELLANT WAS MAINTAINING THREE ACCOUNTS ONE HAVING CC LIMIT AC COUNT WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHER A CURRENT ACCOUNT WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ACCOUNT WITH UCO BA NK. THESE ACCOUNTS ARE REFLECTED IN THE AUDIT REPORT AN D THE BUSINESS OR SALE PROCEEDS MUST HAVE BEEN TRANSACTED IN THESE DISCLOSED ACCOUNTS. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PROVIDED A NY EXPLANATION ABOUT SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE SA VING BANK ACCOUNT WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, YAMUNA NAGAR WHICH IS FOUND TO BE AN UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT. THE AO HAS M ADE THE ADDITION OF ONLY PEAK VALUE AS PER THE ENTRIES R ECORDED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, I FIND THA T THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.33,44,000/- AS TAXA BLE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAI NED CASH CREDITS. THEREFORE, THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 6 7. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPLICATION UNDER RULE 29 OF ITA T RULES STATING THEREIN THAT ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS MAY BE ADMITTED FOR HEARING I.E. COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, COPY OF ACCOUNTS OF TRADE CRE DITORS, COPY OF CC ACCOUNT WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, CASH BOOK AND COPY OF CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE. THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO ILLNESS OF T HE ACCOUNTANT, THESE EVIDENCES COULD NOT BE PRODUCED B EFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THEREFORE, SAME MAY BE ADMI TTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FOR DECIDING THE MATTER IN I SSUE. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN ANY REASON WHY THE SAME DOCUM ENTS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THEREFORE, THESE DOCUMENTS MAY NOT BE ADMITTED FOR HEARING. 9. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE AR E NOT INCLINED TO ADMIT THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AT THI S STAGE. THE ASSESSEE WAS EX-PARTE AT ASSESSMENT STAGE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER GAVE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES TO EXP LAIN THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAIN TAINED WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, YAMUNA NAGAR. THE ASSES SEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THI S BANK ACCOUNT AND THEREAFTER, PLEA WAS TAKEN BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT CASH WAS DEPOSITED FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS AS MENTIONED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, WAS ALSO NOT PROVED THROUGH ANY EVIDENCE. THE LD. CIT(APPEA LS) ALSO NOTED IN HIS FINDINGS THAT ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A LETTER 7 BEFORE HIM THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION BUT ACTUALLY NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE PRODUCED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE LD. CIT(APPE ALS), THEREFORE, SEVERELY CRITICIZED THE ACTION OF THE AS SESSEE IN MAKING FALSE CLAIM BEFORE HIM. IT IS, THEREFORE, C LEAR THAT THE ABOVE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WERE NEVER PRODUCED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AT ANY POINT OF TIME. THEREF ORE, THERE ARE CHANCES OF MANIPULATING THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNT AND COPY OF THE TRADERS ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MISLEADING THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS ALSO ADMIT TED FACT THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT TAKE ANY STEPS FOR MOVING ANY APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE HIM. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS MANIPULATED A LETTER BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WITH REGARD TO PRODUCTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH WERE NEVER PRODUCED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS), WOULD CLEARLY SHOW THAT ASSESSEE HAS NO EXPLANATION, WHAT-SO-EVER FOR NON-PRODUCTION OF THI S ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND TH ERE ARE CHANCES THAT ASSESSEE HAS MANIPULATED ITS RECORDS J UST TO CIRCUMVENT THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION HAS BEEN FURNISHED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE MATERIAL SOUGHT T O BE PRODUCED NOW COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THOUGH THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED THAT THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BECAUSE OF ILLNESS OF THE ACCOUNT ANT BUT 8 SUCH FACT IS NOT MENTIONED EVEN IN THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER RULE 29 OF ITAT RULES FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCE. WE MAY ALSO NOTE HERE THAT FIRST NOTICE W AS ISSUED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN AUGUST, 2012 AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ORDER ON 17.01.2014 WH ICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) VIDE HIS ORDE R DATED 18.11.2014. THEREFORE, IT IS UNBELIEVABLE THAT THE ACCOUNTANT WOULD REMAIN UNDER ILLNESS FOR THREE YEA RS AND FOR WHICH, NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE US. WE MAY ALSO NOTE HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPLICA TION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE REQUESTED FOR ADMI SSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE I.E. BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT W OULD SHOW THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NEVER PRODUCED BEFO RE AUTHORITIES BELOW BUT THE ASSESSEE MADE A FALSE CLA IM BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) OF PRODUCTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THE LETTER FURNISHED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPE ALS) WHICH SUBMISSION WAS REJECTED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEAL S) IN HIS FINDINGS. THEREFORE, THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASS ESSEE ITSELF SPEAKS THAT ASSESSEE COULD MANIPULATE THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE OTHER DOCUMENTS TO AVOID THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 10. THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAWAHAR LAL JAIN, HUF VS CIT 370 ITR 712 CONFIRM ED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN REJECTING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSES SEE BECAUSE NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION HAD BEEN FURNIS HED TO 9 DEMONSTRATE WHY THE MATERIAL SOUGHT TO BE PRODUCED NOW COULD NOT BE PRODUCED EARLIER. 11. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT ABOVE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVID ENCE AT THIS STAGE. THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AD MISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES/DOCUMENTS IS ACCORDINGLY RE JECTED. 12. THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN CONFIRMING THE EX-PART E ASSESSMENT ORDER. AS NOTED ABOVE, ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS GIVEN SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPL AIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAIN ED WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, YAMUNA NAGAR BUT ASSESSE E FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS DESPI TE GIVING SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ISSUED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR NOT FURNISHING THE REPLY WH ICH WAS ALSO NOT COMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD . CIT(APPEALS) WAS, THEREFORE, JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMIN G THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PASSING EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 13. NOW THE ISSUE LEFT FOR CONSIDERATION IS THE ADD ITION OF RS. 33,44,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT IN SAVIN G BANK ACCOUNT WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, YAMUNA NAGA R. THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES TO EXP LAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THIS BANK ACCOUNT BUT 10 ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOS ITS IN THIS BANK ACCOUNT. IT IS ALSO ADMITTED FACTS THAT THIS ACCOUNT WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE AUDIT REPORT AND BALANCE SHEET PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, YAMUN A NAGAR WAS UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF EXPLAINING THE S OURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THIS BANK ACCOUNT THROUGH CASH BOOK OR THE SALE PROCEEDS FOR WHICH ALSO ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED THAT DETAILS OF THIS BANK ACCOUNT WER E OBTAINED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FROM AIR INFORM ATION, OTHERWISE THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE DISCLOSED THI S BANK ACCOUNT TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT AT ALL. WHEN FUR THER INFORMATIONS WERE OBTAINED FROM THE BANK UNDER SECT ION 133(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT CONFRONTED TO THE ASSE SSEE, THE ASSESSEE, DESPITE GIVING OPPORTUNITY AND CONFRO NTING WITH THE REAL FACTS OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF T HE SAME BANK DEPOSITS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO TRIED TO MISLEAD THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) BY MAKING THE FALSE PLEA IN THE LETTER BEFORE HIM THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE HIM DESPITE THE FACT THAT NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE PROD UCED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). 14. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE LIGHT OF THE FINDINGS OF AUTHO RITIES BELOW, WE ARE OF THE VIEW ASSESSEE MISERABLY FAILED TO 11 EXPLAIN SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCO UNT MAINTAINED WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, YAMUNA NAGAR. THEREFORE, AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE JUSTIFIED IN MAKI NG AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME IS, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH JULY,2015. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 10 TH JULY,2015. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH