ANKIT BAJAJ, JAIPUR V. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR

ITITA 4/JPR/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3209 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (International Taxation) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-06-2022
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Peak credit
• Section: 131; 68; 69; 143(3); 143(2); 69A; 43; 22

Judgement Text

vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR MkWa- ,e- ,y- ehuk] ys[kk lnL; ,oa MkWa- ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. M.L. MEENA, AM & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM vk;dj vihy la-@IT(IT)A. No. 04/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 Ankit Bajaj 201, B-52 Embassy Park, Yash Path, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur. cuke Vs. The DCIT, Circle-International Taxation, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BHBPB6733J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj l s@ Assessee by : Shri B.P. Mundra (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Ms. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 15/06/2022 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 16/08/2022 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Delhi-42 dated 24.01.2022 for the Assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1.The addition of Rs. 6,48,000/- maintained and confirmed by CIT(A) on account of cash deposit into bank u/s 69 is bad and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and be quashed and deleted”. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has declared total income of Rs. 1,09,176/- in his return dated 19.07.2017 in his return dated 19.07.2017. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The assessee is residing in Canada and resident status of the assessee during the relevant year is IT(IT)A No. 04/JP/2022 Ankit Bajaj 2 Non-resident. The assessee deposited cash of Rs. 11,48,000/- in his back account with Induslnd Bank, Raja Park Branch, Jaipur and total addition of Rs. 11,48,000/-, an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was deleted and balance of Rs. 6,48,000/- was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on account of cash deposit into bank u/s 69A of the Act is bad and justified in this facts and in the circumstances of the case and be quashed and deleted. 4. In the aforesaid order, the AO issued notice to the assessee u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and re-adjudicated the matter. The relevant part of the assessment order is reproduced as under:- “13. Therefore, in cases where assessees' deposited huge Cash in bank accounts during Demonetisation period (9th November, 2016 to 30th December, 2016), but the sources were neither explained with a rationale nor such money offered for taxation, the onus is on the assessees' to prove that the Cash deposits made did not bear the character of income. In this case, the assessee had failed to give any good explanation about the nature and source of cash deposits, hence the value of Cash deposits, appearing in the IndusInd Bank Account as tabulated in the body of the Order is deemed as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added to the Total Income of the assessee. The Total Income assessed is taxed u/s 115 BBE of the Act at the rate of 60%.Further, penalty proceedings u/s 271 AAC of the Act in respect of unexplained income is initiated. Subject to the above discussion, Total Income of the assessee is assessed as under:- Returned Income :Rs. 1,09,176/- Add: Addition u/s 69A as discussed above : Rs. 11,48,000/- Total income : Rs. 12,57,176/- Refund Off : Rs. 12,57,180/- To be tax u/s 115BBE & 60% 14. Assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act at Rs. 12,57,180/-. Issue demand notice and challan. Charge interest u/s 234A, u/s 234B, u/s 234C IT(IT)A No. 04/JP/2022 Ankit Bajaj 3 and u/s 234D of the Act. Issue penalty notice u/s 271AAC of the Act in respect of income determined u/s 69A of the Act.” 5. Being aggrieved by the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the findings are reproduced as under:- “7.1 The appellant has submitted the same arguments/explanation as were submitted before AO. The appellant contends that cash was withdrawn from the bank and kept with his brother-in-law for taking care of any emergency need of his aged father. 7.2 The appellant has made following withdrawals from the bank account Date Amount in Rs. 25.09.2013 3,50,000/- 01.10.2016 5,00,000/- 03.10.2016 5,00,000/- 7.3 The appellant has not given details regarding any expenses incurred on father's medical treatment or withdrawals made by father from his own bank account for the purpose of his day to day expenses. In view of the overall circumstances, it is reasonable to infer that the amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- was not available and must have been utilized before November, 2016 as a need had arisen to make further withdrawal of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 01.10.2016. The chain of withdrawals show that the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was also utilized for some undisclosed purpose leading to the need for further withdrawal of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 03.10.2016. Thus, the most reasonable view that can be taken in favour of appellant is that Rs. 5,00,000/- withdrawn on 03.10.2016 were available with the appellant / his brother-in-law out of the cash withdrawals from bank account made in past for depositing in the bank account due to demonetization of high value currency notes. In the facts of the case, out of the total addition of Rs. 11,48,000/-, an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- is deleted and balance Rs. 6,48,000/- is confirmed. These grounds of appeal are partly allowed.” IT(IT)A No. 04/JP/2022 Ankit Bajaj 4 6. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before us. The Ld. AR for the assessee has reiterated its arguments in written submission for all the grounds which are as under:- “2. Your honour, out of the total addition of Rs. 11,48,000/-, an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was deleted and balance Rs. 6,48,000/- was confirmed by the Ld. CIT Appeal. Your honour this is the appeal filed by the assessee and the department is neither in appeal nor filed cross objection. Hence your honor the submission is for the defence of the addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT Appeal. 3. Kindly see Ld. CIT Appeal order page no. 1 para 3 where facts are appearing. Relevant scanned portion is as under:- 3. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a non-resident, filed his return showing income of Rs. 1,09,176/- on 19.07.2017. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. The AO observed that the appellant had during demonetization period, deposited cash Rs. 9,95,000/- on 24.11.2016 and Rs. 1,53,000/- on 28.11.2016 in his bank account with Induslnd Bank, Raja Park Branch, Jaipur. The appellant was asked to explain the source of the deposits. It was explained that the cash deposit was made out of the cash withdrawals of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 03.10.2016. Rs. 5,00,000/- on 01.10.2016 and Rs. 3,50,000/- on 25.09.2013. The same facts are also appearing in the Ld. AO order page no. 2 table appearing in point 3. 4. Your honour the proceedings at the assessment stage by the Ld. AO is summarized as under:- a. The Ld. AO raised queries on 12.09.2019 as appearing in Ld. AO order page no. 3 point 4 and the reply by the assessee on 16.09.2019 is also appearing at page no 3 & 4 point no. 5. IT(IT)A No. 04/JP/2022 Ankit Bajaj 5 b. Thereafter the Ld. AO raised another queries on 17.09.2019 as appearing in Ld. AO order page no. 4 point 6 and the reply by the assessee on 23.09.2019 is also appearing at page no 5 & 6 point no. 7. c. Thereafter the Ld. AO issued Summon u/s 131 of the Act were issued to Sh. Deep Chand Bairwa, Sh. Sushil Sharma and Sh. Abhinav Sharma to verify the transactions. All these persons made the compliances of the Summon and also confirmed the submissions of the assessee backed with their respective affidavits. These all facts are appearing in the Ld. AO order page no 6 point no. 8. 5. Your honour the Ld. AO made the addition on the plea as appearing on page no. 6-7 point no. 8.1 to 8.3. The issue raised by the Ld. AO in brief are as under:- 8.1 Firstly, the assessee has submitted that the cash was withdrawn from the bank for taking care of any emergency need of his father who lives in India and is a senior citizen. But the assessee has not submitted any details regarding Medical condition of his father or any other financial requirements of his father. It is also not the case where the father of the assessee is undergoing some medical treatment due to which funds are required to be kept in cash, Secondly, the cash deposits made by the assessee have been verified from the bank statement placed on record. Also it has been noticed that apart from the above said cash deposits there are no other or very meagre cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee during the years 2014-15 to 2017-18. 8.2 The assessee has further stated that in the year 2013 the assessee instructed his brother in law to withdraw Rs. 3.5 lacs from Indus Ind Bank account of the assesse and keep with him for any emergency need of the father of the assessee. But he has not clarified the purpose of IT(IT)A No. 04/JP/2022 Ankit Bajaj 6 such huge withdrawl of cash. As per the reply of the brother in law, cash amount of Rs. 2,02,000/- was used for meeting the requirements of the father of the assessee. But no details, thereof, has been provided by the assessee. It is pertinent to mention here that since 2013 an amount of Rs. 2,02,000/- only (out of Rs. 3.5 lacs withdrawn) were utilized up till Oct 2016 for the personal purpose of the father of the assessee. Then what was the need to withdraw Rs. 10 lees again on 01/10/2016 and 03/10/2016. 8.3 Further. it is worthwhile mentioning here that the cash was withdrawn by Sh. Deep Chand Bairwa and Sh. Sushil Sharma on 01/10/2019 and 03/10/2019 on the instructions of Sh. Abhinav Sharma (brother in law of the assessee) from the bank account of the assessee. Sh. Deep Chand Bairwa and Sh. Sushil Sharma are not related to the assessee or Sh. Abhinav Sharma in any way but still the assessee gave cheques worth Rs. 10 lacs for withdrawing the money and handing over the same to the brother in law of the assessee. However no reason has been given by the assessee for such a huge withdrawal within 2 days. The contentions of the assessee are not acceptable as per the submissions made by the assessee. Specific reason and rationales not clear in respect of the fact that when the assessee's brother in law was already in the possession of substantial cash amount (Rs. 1,53,0000 from the cash withdrawn in 2013 why the cash was withdrawn again in October 2016. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee filed appeal. The Ld. CIT Appeals narrated facts as appearing in the Ld. CIT Appeal order page no. 3 to 6 point no. 6. The Ld. CIT appeal also considered the PLEA OF THE LD. AO AND SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE as appearing at the IT(IT)A No. 04/JP/2022 Ankit Bajaj 7 Ld. CIT Appeal order page no. 3 to 6 point no. 6 second last para to page no. 12 After considering the Plea of the Ld. AO and submission of the assessee Ld. CIT Appeal gave finding as appearing in the CIT Appeal order at page no. 12-13 para 7.3. Relevant scanned portion is as under:- 7.3 The appellant has not given details regarding any expenses incurred on father's medical treatment or withdrawals made by father from his own bank account for the purpose of his day to day expenses. In view of the overall circumstances, it is reasonable to infer that the amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- was not available and must have been utilized before November, 2016 as a need had arisen to make further withdrawal of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 01.10.2016. The chain of withdrawals show that the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was also utilized for some undisclosed purpose leading to the need for further withdrawal of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 03.10.2016. Thus, the most reasonable view that can be taken in favour of appellant is that Rs. 5,00,000/- withdrawn on 03.10.2016 were available with the appellant / his brother-in-law out of the cash withdrawals from bank account made in past for depositing in the bank account due to demonetization of high value currency notes. In the facts of the case, out of the total addition of Rs. 11,48,000/-, an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- is deleted and balance Rs. 6,48,000/- is confirmed. These grounds of appeal are partly allowed.” 7. Kindly permit the AR to submit defence as under:- a. Your honor the Ld. CIT Appeal allowed the relief on the Plea that most reasonable view that can be taken in favour of the appellant is that Rs. 5,00,000/- withdrawn on 3.10.2016 were available with the appellant/His Brother-in-law out of cash withdrawal from bank account made in past for depositing in the bank due to demonetization of high IT(IT)A No. 04/JP/2022 Ankit Bajaj 8 value currency notes. Your honor there were two withdrawals made in Oct. 2016 first Rs. 5,00,000/- on 1.10.2016 and another on 3.10.2016 with the gap of only two days. Since just within less than two months demonetization was declared and therefore the assessee was having no alternative but to deposit Rs. 9.95 lacs on 24.11.2016 and Rs. 1.53 lacs on. 28.11.2016. The cash was kept at home after withdrawal from bank less than 2 months It is undisputed fact that the assessee is residing at Canada and is Non-Resident. Kindly see the Ld. AO order page no. 1, para 1st, 4th last line, the assessee don't have any business or earning source in India (Kindly see the Ld. AO order page no. 6, 1st line), there is no event like marriage ceremony, birthday party, function etc. held in family during Sep 2016 to Dec 2016 (Ld. AO order page no. 4, point I), the assessee resided for less than 25 days in a year in India since last 4 financial years and the sole purpose of visit in India only for to stay some time with father Shri Arvind Bajaj. Kindly see Ld. AO order page no. 6 point no. 8.1 where Ld. AO stated that it is not the case where the father of the assessee is undergoing some medical treatment due to which funds are required to be kept in cash. There is no adverse inference by both the lower authority on the submission of the assessee that The assessee submitted that the amount was kept as cash in hand due to the very old age of father of 76 years and the assessee is residing in Canada. Kindly see Ld. CIT Appeal page no. 9 para 8. Hence, presumption that Rs. 5,00,000/- withdrawn on 1.10.2016 is bad in law and fact. Both the lower authorities have not given any speaking adverse finding thereon. b. As regard to reason of withdrawal of further Rs. 10 lacs when there was balance of Rs. 1.48 lacs left out of previous withdrawal of Rs. 3.5 lacs and expenses of Rs. 2.02 lacs. the submission to the Ld. AO is IT(IT)A No. 04/JP/2022 Ankit Bajaj 9 appearing on Ld. AO order page no. 3 Point 5.c. the scanned portion is as under:- c Further on visit of the assessee during the year financial year ended 31.03,2017 from 23.09.2016 to 15..10..20161 signed two cheques and handover to his brother-in-law Shri Abhinav Sharma for self withdrawn bearing number 932798 and 932799 of Rs. 5 lacs each with the purpose of keeping the cash just to be utilized, if needed, for the purpose of my father Shn Arobd Bajaj. c. As regard to not giving details regarding any expenses incurred on father's medical treatment or withdrawals made by father from his own bank account for the purpose of his day to day expenses, the submission to the Ld. CIT Appeal is appearing on page no. 5 point no. 2 scanned portion is as under:- 2. Respected Madam the assessee is very 'reasonable to keep cash of Rs. 3.50 lacs with brother in law to fulfill the medical requirement of father Every Indian loving parents always take care of them. Shri Arvind Bajaj on and average took Rs. 5,0001- from the brother in law of the assessee and in all took total 'Rs. Z02,000 during approx 3 years. Your Honour the assessee has already filed 'affidavit of, brother in law Shri Abhinav Sharma on dated 16.09.2019 and again giving another affidavit in the light of your honour query. . d. Further, the assessee submitted the affidavit of Shri Abhinav Sharma appearing in the paper book 1 page no. 6 wherein in point no. 8 Shri Abhinav Sharma confirmed the above content in front of Ld. AO by submitting an affidavit. Kindly see Ld. AO order page no. 6 point no. 8 wherein the Ld. AO confirmed that summon u/s 131 was issued and in compliance affidavit of Shri Abhinav IT(IT)A No. 04/JP/2022 Ankit Bajaj 10 Sharma was submitted along with ID proof (kindly see page no. 12 of paper book). Neither the Ld. AO nor Ld. CIT Appeal had given any speaking adverse finding thereon and just not accepted without bringing any evidence on record. e. Hence the Ld. CIT Appeal confirmed the addition by giving finding that in view of the overall circumstances, it is reasonable to infer that the amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- was not available and must have been utilized before November, 2016 as a need had arisen to make further withdrawal of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 01.10.2016. The chain of withdrawals show that the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was also utilized for some undisclosed purpose leading to the need for further withdrawal of Rs.5,00,000/- on 03.10.2016. Thus, the most reasonable view that can be taken in favour of appellant is that Rs. 5,00,000/-withdrawn on 03.10.2016 were available with the appellant / his brother-in-law out of the cash withdrawals from bank account made in past for depositing in the bank account due to demonetization of high value currency notes. In the facts of the case, out of the total addition of Rs. 11,48,000/-, an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- is deleted and balance Rs. 6.48,000/- is confirmed. f. Hence Your Honor the Ld. CIT Appeal confirmed the addition merely on the basis of the "reasonable to infer" and "most reasonable view". 8. Your honour, there is neither any finding that the assessee invested / made expenditure during that period nor is substantiated by evidence and there is no speaking adverse inference on explanation furnished by the assessee. There was not a single iota of evidence found to prove that the assessee had in fact made the cash deposit from its undisclosed income earned during the relevant previous year. 9. There is no event like marriage ceremony, birthday party, function etc. held in family during Sep 2016 to Dec 2016. The assessee with family IT(IT)A No. 04/JP/2022 Ankit Bajaj 11 resides in Canada and stayed in India only for 22 days (23.09.2016 to 15.10.2016), 21 days(13.09.2015 to 04.10.2015), 16 days(31.03.2014 to 17.04.2014) and 15 days( 26.05.2013 to 09.06.2013). The purpose of visit in India only for to stay some time with father Shri Arvind Bajaj. The father is now more than 76 years and every son is having duty to take care of father. 10. Your honor, kind attention is invited to the decision held in Sind Medical stores vs. Commissioner of Income tax by the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan, DB Income Tax Reference No. 24/1992 on dated Nov. 12, 2014 (2014) 90 CCH 0497 Raj HC and (2015) 117 DTR (Raj.) 0497 wherein it was held that as under:- "12. This court in the ease of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Thryamal Balchand (supra), after relying on several judgments, also upheld the finding about peak credit theory. This Court in CIT Vs. Ishwardas Mutha (2004) 270 ITR 597 (Raj.) also accepted the contention to take into account, the peak credit. When any amount is paid, later withdrawn from the books, would be available for recycling and rotation, unless otherwise established as invested elsewhere by the Revenue. We hold the assessee was entitled to the benefit of peak credit which ought to have been allowed instead of making separate addition of entire amount. However, we may observe that the Assessing Officer has to come to a definite finding that the amount withdrawn was used by the assessee in any other expenditure or investment. If the Assessing Officer conies to a finding that withdrawn amount was used or spent by the assessee for any other investment or expenditure than the benefit of peak of such credit, in such circumstances, may not be available". 11. Your honour, in our case there is no finding that withdrawn amount was used or spent by the assessee for any other investment or IT(IT)A No. 04/JP/2022 Ankit Bajaj 12 expenditure hence the benefit of peak of such credit is available for recycling and rotation. The AR further relied the decision held in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ISHWARDASS MUTHA HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN IT Ref. Nos. 1 & 43 of 1998Apr 17, 2002 (2002) 70 CCH 0300 Raj HC (2004) 186 CTR 0759, (2004) 270 ITR 0597, (2004) 141 TAXMAN 555. 12. The AR relied the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of D.K. Garg v. Commissioner of Income-tax SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO. 32204 OF 2017 DECEMBER 1, 2017 Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - In favour of assessee cited [2018] 89 taxmann.com 40 (SC) SLP granted against High Court ruling that where assessee, an accommodation entry provider, was unable to explain all sources of deposits and corresponding payments, he would not be entitled to benefit of peak credit. Hence, your honor is kindly requested to allow the relief to the assessee.” 7. The Ld. DR, on the other hand strongly supporting the order of the CIT(A). 8. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. From the records, the Bench noted that the AO made an addition of Rs.11,48,000/- while making the assessment. Thus the AO in the case of the assessee treated the cash deposit of Rs.11,48,000/- as unexplained and added the same u/s 69A of the Act. However, in first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) reduced the addition to the extent of Rs.6,48,000/- by deleting the amount of Rs. 5.00 lacs with following observation:- IT(IT)A No. 04/JP/2022 Ankit Bajaj 13 7.3.....Thus, the most reasonable view that can be taken in favour of appellant is that Rs. 5,00,000/- withdrawn on 03.10.2016 were available with the appellant / his brother-in- law out of the cash withdrawals from bank account made in past for depositing in the bank account due to demonetization of high value currency notes. In the facts of the case, out of the total addition of Rs. 11,48,000/-, an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- is deleted and balance Rs. 6,48,000/- is confirmed...’’ 9. The Bench observed from the submissions of the ld. AR of the assessee that during the course of hearing that there is neither any finding that the assessee invested/made expenditure during that period nor is substantiated by evidence and there is no speaking adverse inference on explanation furnished by the assessee. It is also observed that there was not a single iota of evidence found to prove that the assessee had in fact made the cash deposit from its undisclosed income earned during the relevant previous year. It is noteworthy to mention that there is no event like marriage ceremony, birthday party, function etc. held in family during Sep 2016 to Dec 2016. The assessee with family resides in Canada and stayed in India only for 22 days (23.09.2016 to 15.10.2016), 21 days(13.09.2015 to 04.10.2015), 16 days(31.03.2014 to 17.04.2014) and 15 days( 26.05.2013 to 09.06.2013). The purpose of visit in India is only for stay sometime with father Shri Arvind Bajaj. The father is now more than 76 years and every son has moral duty to take care of father. The ld. AR of the assessee invited the attention of the Bench in the case of Sind Medical stores vs. Commissioner of Income Tax of Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan, DB Income Tax Reference No. 24/1992 on dated Nov. 12, 2014 (2014) 90 CCH 0497 Raj HC and (2015) 117 DTR (Raj.) 0497 wherein it was held that as under:- IT(IT)A No. 04/JP/2022 Ankit Bajaj 14 "12. This court in the ease of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Thryamal Balchand (supra), after relying on several judgments, also upheld the finding about peak credit theory. This Court in CIT Vs. Ishwardas Mutha (2004) 270 ITR 597 (Raj.) also accepted the contention to take into account, the peak credit. When any amount is paid, later withdrawn from the books, would be available for recycling and rotation, unless otherwise established as invested elsewhere by the Revenue. We hold the assessee was entitled to the benefit of peak credit which ought to have been allowed instead of making separate addition of entire amount. However, we may observe that the Assessing Officer has to come to a definite finding that the amount withdrawn was used by the assessee in any other expenditure or investment. If the Assessing Officer conies to a finding that withdrawn amount was used or spent by the assessee for any other investment or expenditure than the benefit of peak of such credit, in such circumstances, may not be available" 10. The ld. AR of the assessee further prayed that in our case there is no finding that withdrawn amount was used or spent by the assessee for any other investment or expenditure hence the benefit of peak of such credit is available for recycling and rotation. To this effect, the ld AR further relied the decision in the case of CIT vs Ishwardas Mutha (Raj. H.C.IT Ref. Nos. 1 & 43 of 1998Apr 17, 2002 (2002) 70 CCH 0300 Raj HC (2004) 186 CTR 0759, (2004) 270 ITR 0597, (2004) 141 TAXMAN 555. In view of the above facts, circumstances case and the decisions relied upon by the ld. AR of the assessee (supra), we do not concur with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Thus the addition amounting to Rs.6,48,000/- sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is directed to be deleted. Hence, the solitary ground of the assessee is allowed. IT(IT)A No. 04/JP/2022 Ankit Bajaj 15 In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16/08/2022. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ MkWa- ,e- ,y- ehuk ½ ¼MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh½ (Dr. M.L. Meena ) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 16/08/2022. *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Ankit Bajaj, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- DCIT, Circle-International Taxation, Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File { IT(IT)A No. 04/JP/2022} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar