ITO, Ward 4, Ahmednagar V. Shri Sanjay Janardhan Pahadke, Ahmednagar

ITA 912/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6729 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S PRAVEENA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice; Source of fund
• Section: 234B; 68; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.709/PN/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) SHRI SANJAY JANARDAN PHADKE, KHANDOBA NAGAR, AT POST & TAL. SHEVGAON, DIST : AHMEDNAGAR 414 502 PAN NO.ANDPP8232H .. APPELLANT VS. ITO (CIB), NASHIK .. RESPONDENT ITA NO.912/PN/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) ITO, WARD-4, AHMEDNAGAR .. APPELLANT VS. SHRI SANJAY JANARDAN PHADKE, KHANDOBA NAGAR, AT POST & TAL. SHEVGAON, DIST : AHMEDNAGAR 414 502 PAN NO.ANDPP8232H .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K. KULKARNI REVENUE BY : SMT. S. PRAVEENA DATE OF HEARING : 11-07-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17-07-2014 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THE ABOVE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND T HE REVENUE RESPECTIVELY ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 3 0-01-2013 OF THE CIT(A)-V, PUNE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE B EING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT IN THIS CA SE INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED U/S.285BA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ACCORDING TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE DEPOSITS IN CASH IN HIS SAVINGS B ANK A/C. AGGREGATING RS.17,55,550/- DURING THE F.Y. 2004-05. THE AO, THEREFORE, ISSUED NOTICE U/S.142(1) TO THE ASSESSEE CALLING FOR THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06. ALTHOUGH TH IS NOTICE WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE THERE WAS NO COMPLIANC E. THEREFORE, THE AO ISSUED ANOTHER NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE CALLIN G FOR THE FOLLOWING DETAILS : 1. SOURCES OF INCOME FOR CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN THE SAVI NGS BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE F.Y. 2004-05 ALONG W ITH NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE SOURCES OF INCO ME. 2. DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE D URING THE F.Y. 2004-05 ALONG WITH BANK PASS BOOKS/BANK ACCOUNT ST ATEMENTS. 3. STATEMENT OF ASSETS/LIABILITIES AS ON 31-03-2005. 2.1 EVEN THOUGH THIS NOTICE WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE, STILL THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE. THEREFORE, THE AO COMPLET ED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BY TREATIN G THE DEPOSITS IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS.17,55,550/ - AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND BROUGHT TO TAX THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 3. BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE EXPART E ORDER PASSED BY THE AO. THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT W AS ALSO CHALLENGED BY FILING AN ADDITIONAL GROUND ON THE GR OUND THAT THE DEMAND NOTICE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WERE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AFTER 31-12-2007 AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT WAS N OT COMPLETED BEFORE 31-12-2007 AND THEREFORE THE SAME WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 3 3.1 ON MERITS, IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A LETTER REQUESTING THE AO FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE CASE AFTER 21-01-2008 FOR THE REASON OF OBTAINING THE STATEMENT OF PASSBOOK. SINCE THE ASSESSMENT WAS GETTING TIME BARRED, THE AO DID NOT GIVE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS ONLY ONE SOURCE OF INCOME, I.E. AGRICULTURE INCOME. FURTHER, THE D EPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WERE MADE OUT OF PREVIOUS WITHDRAWALS BY TH E ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO REASON FOR MAKING ANY ADDITI ON. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED A COPY OF THE SALE DEED OF LAND BY HIS B ROTHER AND A CONFIRMATION THEREOF STATING THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS WERE DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 3.2 BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE THE LD.CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. THE AO DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS CALLED FOR THE COPIES OF 7/1 2 EXTRACTS, SALE BILL OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE, PROOF IN RESPECT OF D EPOSIT IN BANK FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OF THE BROTHER OF THE ASS ESSEE AND THE BANK STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE. 3.3 THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE BANK STATEMENTS AND 7 /12 EXTRACTS AND CROPS TAKEN DURING F.Y. 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED THE COPY OF SALE DEED OF LAND WHICH WAS SOLD BY HIS BROTHER SHRI SUNIL PHADKE ON 21-10-2004 FOR RS. 2 LAKHS AND A CO NFIRMATION LETTER STATING THAT HIS BROTHER USED TO DEPOSIT HIS AGRICU LTURAL INCOME AND SALE PRICE OF THE LAND IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE A SSESSEE. THE CIT(A) CONFRONTED THE CONTENTS OF THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE REMAND REPORT THE LD.CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF 4 RS.4,05,550/- OUT OF RS.17,55,550/- ADDED BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 11.4 I HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO ALL THE FA CTS BEFORE ME AND HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE APPELLA NT. THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT WHERE THERE ARE BOTH DEPOSITS AND WITH DRAWALS, EACH ITEM OF WITHDRAWAL CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN INDEPENDENT ITEM OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS BOTH LOGICAL AND SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF ITAT BANGALORE CITED BY HIM, NAMELY, DR. M. SOMASHEKH AR VS. ACIT (SUPRA). DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, A COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT EXTRACT WHEREIN THE DEPOSITS WERE MADE W AS CALLED FOR AND AVAILABILITY OF CASH IN HAND BASED ON PREVIOUS WITHDR AWALS FROM THE SAME ACCOUNT WHICH COULD POSSIBLY BE AVAILABLE FOR REDEPOSIT IN THE ACCOUNT WAS WORKED OUT. THE PICTURE THAT EMERGED WAS AS FOLLOWS :- DATE TRANSACTION AMOUNT (RS.) 01/04/04 LESS CASH IN HAND* 3,92,000/- 06/04/04 CASH DEPOSIT 3,30,000/- 07/04/04 CASH DEPOSIT 45,000/- 17,000/- 12/04/04 ADD CASH WITHDRAWAL 3,00,000/- 13/04/04 CASH WITHDRAWAL 30,000/- 13/04/04 CASH WITHDRAWAL 25,000/- 16/04/04 CASH WITHDRAWAL 20,000/- 3,92,000/- 19/04/04 LESS CASH DEPOSIT 50,000/- 3,42,000/- 23/04/04 ADD CASH WITHDRAWAL 10,000/- 07/05/05 CASH WITHDRAWAL 48,000/- 29/05/04 CASH WITHDRAWAL 27,000/- 05/06/04 CASH WITHDRAWAL 20,000/- 4,47,000/- 21/08/04 LESS CASH DEPOSIT 1,00,000/- 25/08/04 CASH DEPOSIT 2,20,000/- 02/09/04 CASH DEPOSIT 2,20,000/- (-)93,000/- 03/09/04 ADD CASH WITHDRAWAL 70,000/- (-)23,000/- 21/10/04 LESS CASH DEPOSIT 5,00,000/- 22/11/04 CASH DEPOSIT 80,000/- (-)6,03,000/- 01/12/04 ADD CASH WITHDRAWAL 8,000/- (-)5,95,000/- 15/02/05 LESS CASH DEPOSIT 1,00,000/- 17/02/05 CASH DEPOSIT 10,000/- 22/02/05 CASH DEPOSIT 1,000/- 10/03/05 CASH DEPOSIT 99,550/- CASH IN HAND (-)8,05,550/- * FROM RS.2,00,000/-, RS.98,000/- AND RS.94,000/- (TOTAL RS.3,92,000/-) CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN ON 28 /01/2004, 24/02/2004 AND 15/03/2004 RESPECTIVELY (I.E., PRIOR TO THE PY UNDER CONSIDERATION). 5 11.5 FROM THE ABOVE, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT AS ON 10/03 /2005, THERE WAS A CASH DEFICIT OF RS.8,05,550/- IN THE APPELLANT'S HANDS TO MAKE THE DEPOSITS FOUND IN HIS ACCOUNT. THE AO, IN HIS REMAN D REPORT, HAS, HOWEVER, CONFIRMED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PRODUCED A COPY OF A SALE DEED EVIDENCING THAT THE APPELLANT'S BROTHER SHRI SU NIL PHADKE HAD SOLD A PIECE OF LAND FOR RS.2,00,000/-. CONSIDERING T HIS EVIDENCE BACKED BY A LETTER FROM THE APPELLANT'S BROTHER, AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,00,000/- OUT OF THE DEPOSIT OF RS.8,05,550/- IS HE LD TO BE EXPLAINED. THE CASH DEFICIT IN THE APPELLANTS HAND IS THEREFORE REDUCED TO RS.6,05,550/-. 11.6 COMING NEXT TO THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD BY THE APPELLANT, I HAVE PERUSED THE DECISION OF THE HON. KERALA HIGH C OURT IN THE AFOREMENTIONED CASE OF K.S. KANNAN KUNHI (SUPRA). IN THAT CASE, THE HON. KERALA HIGH COURT HELD THAT EVEN WHEN THE ASSES SEE'S EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO A PARTICULAR INVESTMENT W AS NOT FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE, THE AO HAD TO FURTHER CONSIDER WHETHE R ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT SHOULD BE INFERRED THAT THE AMOUNTS CONSTITUTED INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR WHEN THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO MATERIAL EVEN TO RAISE A REASONABLE SUSPIC ION THAT THE ASSESSEE INDULGED IN ANY ACTIVITY OF INCOME EARNING NAT URE IN THE ACCOUNTING YEAR. 11.7 THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISION OF THE HON. KERALA HIGH COURT HAD COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE HON. APEX COURT IN CIT VS. P. MOHANAKALA [2007] 161 TAXMAN 169 (SC) AND THE HON. APEX COURT HAD HELD THAT THE DECISION OF THE HON. KERALA HIGH C OURT IN K.S. KANNAN KUNHI DID NOT LAY DOWN THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF THE AO TO SUO MOTU MAKE AN INQUIRY EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PLEA OR REBUTT AL BY THE ASSESSEE. THE APEX COURT FURTHER HELD THAT THE SAID DECISION HA D TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE LIGHT OF THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT IN SUMATI DAYAL VS. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC). IN SUMATI DAYAL'S CASE, THE HON. SUPREME COURT HAD HELD AS FOLLOWS:- IN ALL CASES IN WHICH A RECEIPT IS SOUGHT TO BE TAXED AS INCOME, THE BURDEN ON THE DEPARTMENT TO PROVE THAT IT IS WIT HIN THE TAXING PROVISION AND IF A RECEIPT IS IN THE NATURE OF INCOME, THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT IT IS NOT TAXABLE BECAUSE IT F ALLS WITHIN EXEMPTION PROVIDED BY THE ACT LIES UPON THE ASSESSEE. BU T IN VIEW OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, WHERE ANY SUM IS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR THE S AME MAY BE CHARGED TO INCOME-TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR IF THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE THEREOF IS, IN THE OPINI ON OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NOT SATISFACTORY. IN SUCH A CASE THERE I S, PRIMA FACIE, EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. VIZ., THE RE CEIPT OF MONEY, AND IF HE FAILS TO REBUT, THE SAID EVIDENCE B EING UNREBUTTED, CAN BE USED AGAINST HIM BY HOLDING THAT I T WAS A RECEIPT OF AN INCOME NATURE. 11.8 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT APPELL ANT'S CASE AGAINST THE RATIO OF THE AFOREMENTIONED CASES AND THE LEGAL P OSITION EXPLAINED BY THE HON. APEX COURT, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE APPE LLANT'S MAIN CONTENTION IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THROUGH THE VERBAL ARGUMENTS RAISED BY HIS LD. AR IS THAT THE DEPOSITS WERE MADE OUT OF THE WITHDRAWALS FROM THE SAME ACCOUNT. AN ALTERNATE C ONTENTION REGARDING AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAS ALSO BEEN RAISED, BU T THE EXTENT OF INCOME THEREFROM HAS REMAINED UNSUBSTANTIATED AS HAS AL SO BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT. HOWEVER, OWNERSHIP OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BY THE APPELLANT TO THE EXTENT OF 21 ACRES HAS BEEN 6 CONFIRMED BY THE AO. CONSIDERING THIS, TAKING A LIBER AL VIEW, A FURTHER AMOUNT OF RS.2,00,000/- OUT OF THE CASH DEFICIT OF RS. 8,05,550/- IS HELD TO BE EXPLAINED OUT OF THE APPELLANT'S AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS WELL AS HIS BROTHER'S AGRICULTURAL INCOME CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN D EPOSITED IN HIS ACCOUNT ON ESTIMATE BASIS. AS REGARDS THE REMAINING AMOU NT OF RS.4,05,550/- (CASH DEFICIT OF RS.8,05,550/- LESS RS.2,00,000/- FROM SALE OF' BROTHER'S LAND LESS RS.2,00,000/- BEING APPELLA NT'S AND HIS BROTHERS AGRICULTURAL INCOME), CONSIDERING THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF P. MOHANAKALA MENTION ED ABOVE, ADDITION TO THIS EXTENT (RS.4,05,550/-) IS HEREBY SUSTAINED.. 3.4 AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH PART RELIEF GIVEN BY THE CI T(A) THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL BEFOR E US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : GROUNDS BY ASSESSEE : 1) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE LEGAL POSITION THAT THE A. O. HAD COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT HURRIEDLY AND EXPARTE UNDER S. 144 OF THE AC T VIOLATING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE ASSESSMENT IS VITIA TED IN LAW AND IT BE CANCELLED. 2) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,0 5,550/- TREATING IT AS CASH DEFICIT FOUND OUT FROM THE CASH DEPOSITED IN TO BANK ACCOUNT WHEN IT WAS PROPERLY EXPLAINED THAT ASSESSEE WAS AGRICULT URIST AND HAD NO OTHER KNOWN SOURCE OF INCOME. THE DEPOSITS INTO BANK ACCOUNT HAVING PROPERLY EXPLAINED THERE WAS NO CASE FOR SUSTAINING THE ADDITION INVOKING S. 285BA OF THE ACT. THE ADDI TION SUSTAINED BY CIT(A) BE QUASHED. 3) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W THE ADDITION OF RS. 13,55,550/- WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN VIEW OF GROUND NO . 2 ABOVE. THE ADDITION BE DELETED. 4) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND I N THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT BE DELETED. 5) THE APPELLANT CRAVES/LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTE R ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. GROUNDS BY REVENUE : 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS CONTRARY TO LAW AN D TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA X (APPEALS) IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN SU STAINING AN ADDITION OF RS. 4,05,550/- ONLY FROM OUT OF THE ADDI TION OF RS.17,55,550/- MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT TOWARDS (UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 7 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) GR OSSLY ERRED IN GIVING THE ASSESSEE UNDUE BENEFIT OF SET OFF OF CASH WITH DRAWALS AGAINST THE CASH DEPOSITS MADE INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT ON VARIOUS DAT ES BY ROUTINELY PRESUMING THAT ALL SUCH CASH WITHDRAWALS WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR BEING RE-DEPOSITED IN THE BANK. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) GR OSSLY ERRED IN NOT ENQUIRING ABOUT THE REASONS FOR CASH WITHDRAWALS AN D THE UTILIZATION OF THE AMOUNTS SO WITHDRAWN. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) GR OSSLY ERRED IN ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE A BENEFIT OF RS. 2,00,000/- TOWARD S AGRICULTURAL INCOME 'BY TAKING A LIBERAL VIEW' WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE H AD NOT ADDUCED ANY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID AGRICULTURAL INCO ME SO AS TO DESERVE SUCH A BENEFIT. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) GR OSSLY ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEE'S BROTHER'S CONFIRMATION REGARDING DEPOSIT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF LAND IN THE ASSESSEE'S BANK ACCOUNT WITHOUT M AKING ANY FURTHER ENQUIRY IN THIS MATTER. 7. FOR THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS AS MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INC OME-TAX (APPEALS) MAY BE VACATED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE REST ORED. 8. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER O R DELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPE LLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAV E ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THERE WAS CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.17,55,550/- IN TH E BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE INFORMATION RECEIVED IN THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN U/S.285BA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THERE IS A LSO NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE NEVER BOTHERED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER FOR WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONSTRAINED TO PASS AN ORDER U/S.144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. WE THEREFORE FIND NO MERIT IN THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED EXPARTE WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE LD.C IT(A). GROUND 8 OF APPEAL NO.1 BY THE ASSESSEE IS THEREFORE DISMISS ED. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PRESSED BY LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE FOR WHICH LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NO OBJECTION. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 4.1 SO FAR AS DEPOSIT OF RS.17,55,550/- BY THE ASSE SSEE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THE ASSESSEE DURING T HE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT AN AMO UNT OF RS.2 LAKHS IS OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF LAND BY HIS BROTHER WHIC H HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, FOR WHICH A CO NFIRMATION LETTER FROM THE BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO FILED DUR ING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO ACKNOWLEDGED THE SAME. FOR THE REMAINING AMOUNT, T HE ASSESSEE TRIED TO EXPLAIN BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE SAME IS OUT O F AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE B ANK ACCOUNT AND AT TIMES CERTAIN AMOUNTS WERE WITHDRAWN AND WHICH W ERE RE- DEPOSITED. WE FIND BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE THE LD.CIT(A) WORKED OUT THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH F OR REDEPOSIT AND DETERMINED A NEGATIVE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.8,05,550/- AFTER CONSIDERING THE AVAILABILITY OF OPENING CASH AT RS.3,92,000/-. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SALE PROCEEDS OF LAND BY HIS BROTHER AT RS.2 LA KHS AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME DURING THE YEAR AT RS.2,00,000/-, HE SUSTAIN ED AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,05,550/-, WHICH IN OUR OPINION IS A REASONED O RDER AND DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE. ALTHOUGH T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN FULL DETAILS TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME, HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE EXTENT OF LAND AT 21 ACRES, THE AGR ICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.2,00,000/- ESTIMATED BY LD.CIT(A) IN OUR OPINION IS A REASONED 9 ONE. HENCE, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. SO FAR AS THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE THAT UNDUE BENEFIT HAS BEEN GIVEN BY TH E CIT(A) BY SETTING OFF CASH WITHDRAWAL AGAINST CASH DEPOSITED ON VARIOUS DATES BY ROUTINELY PRESUMING THAT ALL SUCH WITHDRAWALS WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR BEING RE-DEPOSITED IN THE BANK, WE FIN D THE VIEW TAKEN BY LD.CIT(A) IS A POSSIBLE VIEW WHICH CANNOT BE OUTRIG HTLY REJECTED. NO DOUBT, HE HAS TAKEN A LIBERAL VIEW. HOWEVER, IN OU R CONSIDERED OPINION, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THIS VIEW IS JUSTIFIED. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE A CCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 4.2 SO FAR AS THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE ANY OTHER SOURCE OF INCO ME OTHER THAN AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS CONCERNED, THE SAME IN OUR O PINION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN TOTO, IN ABSENCE OF FURNISHING OF DETAI LS OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. HE HAS ONLY FILED THE EXTENT OF LAND HOLDI NG THROUGH THE 7/12 EXTRACTS WHICH ACCORDING TO THE DOCUMENTS IS ABOUT 21 ACRES. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ALREADY CONSIDERED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2 LAKHS AS THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM SUCH AGRICULTURE LAND HELD BY THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS A VERY REASONED ONE WHICH DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFEREN CE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS UPHELD. FURTHER, THE CIT(A) HAS ALREAD Y CONSIDERED THE WITHDRAWALS PRIOR TO APRIL 2004 AS OPENING CASH AVA ILABILITY. THEREFORE, THE SAME DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERE NCE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS UPHELD. 10 5. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.4 RELATES TO LEVY OF INTERES T U/S.234A, 234B AND 234C. 5.1 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDE, WE FIND THAT CHARG ING OF INTEREST UNDER THE ABOVE SECTIONS ARE MANDATORY AND CONSEQUE NTIAL IN NATURE. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . 6. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.5 BY THE ASSESSEE BEING GENE RAL IN NATURE IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17-07-2014. SD/- SD/- (R.S. PADVEKAR) (R.K. PAND A) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE DATED: 17 TH JULY, 2014 SATISH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT(A)-V, PUNE 4. THE CIT-V, PUNE 5. THE D.R, B PUNE BENCH 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE