MADHUR RAHEJA, JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE(INTL TAX), JAIPUR

ITITA 7/JPR/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8811 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (International Taxation) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-09-2022
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Period of limitation; Corroborative evidences; Time period of passing order
• Section: 68; 69; 144; 142(1); 133(6); 69A

Judgement Text

vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’A’ JAIPUR Jh laanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM deys’k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@IT(IT) A No. 07/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2017-18 Madhur Raheja 1098, SBBJ Street Chaura Rasta Jaipur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle (International Taxation) Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ADXPR 9393 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjl s@Assesseeby :Shri Vedant Agarwal (Adv.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 27/09/2022 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 09/11/2022 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, A.M. This appeal is filed by the assessee aggrieved from the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Delhi-42 [ Here in after referred as Ld. CIT(A) ] for the assessment year 2017-18 dated 18.01.2022 which in turn arises from the order passed by the DCIT, Circle- International Taxation, Jaipur passed under Section 144 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 26.12.2019. 2 IT(IT)A No. 07/JP/2022 Madhur Raheja, Jaipur vs. ITO,Circle (IT), Jaipur 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds of appeal; “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the lower authorities i.e., the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals), grossly erred in making additions of Rs. 23,17,910/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the fact that' the alleged deposits were made out of earlier withdrawals and savings. The addition has been made on surmises and conjectures only and the lower authorities could not establish any other use of money withdrawn by the Assessee. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the lower authorities i.e., the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals), grossly erred in making additions of Rs. 48,23,486/ without giving an opportunity to explain the deposits in this respect. Therefore, the addition made is unjust, illegal, and contrary to the principles of natural justice. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the lower authorities i.e., the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. At the outset registry has pointed out that there is delay of 4 days in submission of physical copy of appeal after e-filling the same on the portal. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that it was merely 4 days delay and the reasons behind for such delay is that the assessee is a Non Resident of India (NRI) and the physical papers were sent to him abroad for signature and this process has delayed the submission of the appeal in physical merely for a four days and the same may be considered accordingly. The ld. AR of the assessee alternatively pleaded that the Honourable Supreme Court vide order dated 10-01.2022 excluded period starting from 3 IT(IT)A No. 07/JP/2022 Madhur Raheja, Jaipur vs. ITO,Circle (IT), Jaipur 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for the purpose of limitation and court also held that in cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. Based on these facts he submitted that the delay may be condoned. Per contra ld. DR did not controvert the facts stated by ld. AR of the assessee. Considering the facts stated in the application for condonation of delay the delay of 4 days is considered and appeal is admitted. 4. The fact as culled out from the records is that AO as per the information available on system observed that there are cash deposits amounting to Rs. 12,76,410/- in the State Bank of Hyderabad A/c No. 1939000100759442 and 62460743019 of the assessee during the demonetization period (F.Y. 2016-17). As the assessee has not filed any ITR for the year under consideration, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 14/03/2018. Further notice u/s 142(1) of the Act and questionnaire were issued on 13/06/2019, 18/09/2019. The assessee filed 4 IT(IT)A No. 07/JP/2022 Madhur Raheja, Jaipur vs. ITO,Circle (IT), Jaipur part reply on 27/09/2019. The assessee submitted that he is a Non- Resident and during the demonetization period he deposited cash in his account out of cash available from the earlier withdrawals. The case of the assessee was received on transfer on 17/10/2019. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, questionnaire was issued on 24/10/2019. 5. During the course of assessment proceedings Bank Account statement and KYC documents were called for from the State Bank of Hyderabad, Punjab National Bank u/s 133(6) of the Act which are placed on record. As per the KYC, address of the assessee is of China. On perusal of bank account statement, it has been noticed that the cash deposits amounting to Rs. 12,99,900/- was made by the assessee during demonetization period and cash deposits amounting to Rs. 10,18,010/- was made by the assessee before demonetization period during the year in the SBI. The ld. AO has also noted that the credit entries amounting to Rs. 48,23,486/- appearing in the assessee’s PNB account No. 1939000100759442 for which assessee has not submitted any reply even though specifically asked to explain the credit in bank account. The assessee filed ITRs on 12.01.2016 for A. Y. 2014-15 and A.Y. 2015-16 but both were invalid as per system. The residential status was shown as 5 IT(IT)A No. 07/JP/2022 Madhur Raheja, Jaipur vs. ITO,Circle (IT), Jaipur resident and in both the year the assessee has shown income of Rs. 2,48,700/- for A. Y. 2015-16 and Rs. 1,96,500/- for A. Y. 2014-15. The assessing officer issued a show cause notice u/s. 144(1)(b) of the Act on 08.11.2019 asking the assessee to clarify following details; a) Purpose of withdrawal made earlier. b) Cash in hand of Rs. 18,25,050/- shown as on 31.03.2016. No verification. Why so much cash kept at home. c) Cash was not deposited in a single go but in smaller amounts on different dates. d) Huge withdrawals through cheques seems to be payments made to someone. What was the purpose of withdrawal when already cash in hand. e) On perusal of passport it is observed that assessee departed India on 24.11.2016. However, there is cash deposit on 25.11.2016 in the accounts. Please explain who deposited cash on 25.11.2016. f) Certified copies of P & L Account, Balance Sheet, Audit Report for previous 3 years. g) The source of all credit entries in the bank accounts to be explained. 6. Assessee submitted reply of these queries on 02.12.2019. During the year only one export parcel was made from his firm named M/s. Vasi International which was opened by him for the export of textile items. The total export turnover of Rs. 15,40,823/- was made on which profit at the rate of 10 % which is Rs. 1,54,082/- is declared. The assessee has 6 IT(IT)A No. 07/JP/2022 Madhur Raheja, Jaipur vs. ITO,Circle (IT), Jaipur submitted a copy of export bill in the support of his claim. On perusal of the submission of the assessee it has been noticed that the copy of export bill is without any signature without exporter’s reference number, invoice number and date is 12.02.2016 which relates to F. Y. 2015-16 and not F. Y. 2016-17. Therefore, AO did not believe the submission of the assessee and doubted that in fact export is made by the assessee or not. Regarding the purpose of withdrawal of huge cash, the assessee submitted that the purpose was to renovate the parental house situated at Jaipur but due to bad health of his mother and other family problems work could not be done and the amount was deposited back by his mother. The AO noted this contention of the assessee is without any supporting evidence. The ld. AO further noted that there is no rationale given by the assessee as to why the renovation expenses were to be borne in cash. The ld. AO further observed from the cash book submitted by the assessee where in withdrawal of cash amounting to Rs. 7,00,000/- in February 2016, Rs. 11,43,700 in March, 2016, the assessee has not filed any reasoning for withdrawal of huge cash amounting to Rs. 18,43,700/- during these two months and why the same were not utilized up to till November, 2016. It is a normal human behavior that payment for expenditure is made once it has been incurred any only after the work is done, cash is withdrawn ( in case of cash payment ). The 7 IT(IT)A No. 07/JP/2022 Madhur Raheja, Jaipur vs. ITO,Circle (IT), Jaipur assessee has also stated that the cash was withdrawn by staff on his behalf. The submission of the assessee without any basis as no details of the staff have been provided. No purpose of cash withdrawals has been explained and not only that why the same is made from the over draft account. The contention of the assessee in this regard not considered as tenable and hence not accepted by AO. As regards the cash deposits made on different dates and not in a single go during demonetization because the cash was deposited by his mother as submitted by the ld. AR and it was difficult for her to stand in long queues. On perusal of the pattern of the cash deposits in the accounts of the assessee it has been noticed that the cash amount ranging from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 49,000/- were deposited on various dates in the different accounts and the number of times cash deposits were made comes to 56. In such a scenario, it becomes difficult to believe that it was easy for the mother of the assessee to make cash deposits 56 times rather than fewer times. All the explanation seems after thought and the ld. AO further noted that the possibility of the money belonging to someone else deposited in the bank account of the assessee cannot be ruled out. Based on these observations a final show cause notice was sent to the assessee on 03.12.2019 asking the assessee to provide the reason and rationale for cash withdrawals on later dates 8 IT(IT)A No. 07/JP/2022 Madhur Raheja, Jaipur vs. ITO,Circle (IT), Jaipur when assessee in possession of substantial cash. Assessee claimed that he did not maintain the books of account but have produced cash book for clamming cash in hand to explain the cash deposited during the demonetization period. The ld. AO also called for narration/details of all credit entries in bank accounts. The assessee replied that reply submitted on 02.12.2019 be considered. The AO has verified from the bank account statement placed on record and taken a view that the assessee has failed to give any good explanation about the nature and source of cash deposits during the financial year 2016-17, Rs. 10,18,010/- deposited before demonetization and Rs. 12,99,000/- on account of demonetization of currency of 500 and 1000 notes totaling to Rs. 23,17,910/- added as unexplained money with in the provision of section 69A of the Act. Further the ld. AO observed that there appear credit entries to Rs. 48,23,486/- appearing in the assessee’s PNB bank account also unexplained money under the said provision and added it to the total income and a sum of Rs. 4,505/- being the interest credited in this account being not considered in the return of income added as income of the assessee. 9 IT(IT)A No. 07/JP/2022 Madhur Raheja, Jaipur vs. ITO,Circle (IT), Jaipur 7. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld CIT(A) and his relevant findings at para 7 to 12, the same is reiterated as under:- “7. It is seen that during the appellate proceedings, the appellant has not submitted any explanation to the cash deposit, credit entries and bank interest. 7.1 The appellant had contended that she had made withdrawal earlier for the purpose of renovation of parental house. The appellant has submitted no evidence in this regard. It is not explained as to why huge cash withdrawal of Rs 11,43,700 was made in March. 2016 when she had already withdrawn Rs 7,00,000/- in February, 2016 The purpose of withdrawal is not proven and the same does not appear to be for renovation purpose. Had this been the purpose, the appellant would have utilized the same by November, 2016. It has not been shown as to whether the renovation was carried out subsequently. 7.2 The appellant had argued before AO that cash deposits were made on different dates because the cash was deposited by her mother and it was difficult for her to stand in long queues. This argument was rejected by the AO as the cash ranging from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 49,000/- was deposited on 56 different dates. During appeal, it has been argued that the cash was deposited in 5-6 instances on a single day. This does not explain the source of deposit. Obviously, the cash was deposited in small amounts under an assumption that small deposits would escape the scrutiny of authorities and the appellant would be able to defeat the purpose of demonetization by making cash deposits in parts. If it had been difficult for the mother to stand in long queues and the money was accounted, she would have deposited the entire money in one go to avoid botheration of going to the bank 56 times. This conduct itself shows that the money so deposited was clearly unaccounted. On facts, the addition made by the AO is found justified. 8. The appellant has only raised legal objection in grounds number 1 and 2 that the impugned addition for unexplained cash deposit cannot be made u/s 69A of the Act as the appellant was not maintaining any books of accounts and as such had not recorded such money in the books of accounts. 8.1 Section 69A of the Act provides that where in any year the taxpayer is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money. bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the taxpayer 10 IT(IT)A No. 07/JP/2022 Madhur Raheja, Jaipur vs. ITO,Circle (IT), Jaipur offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, than the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the taxpayer for such year. 8.2 It is settled law that the assessee would still be liable to explain the source of acquisition of money, if the taxpayer is found to be the owner of any money, even if he is not maintaining any books of account. From the language of section 69A, it is very clear the onus of proving the source of money found in possession of an assessee is on him. The appellant has confused provisions of section 68 with section 69A. Section 68 can be invoked only when the assessee is maintaining books of account. The rationale is that there money is found in the form of book entries and therefore, the onus is on the assessee to explain the credit entry in the books of accounts. This is not the situation in case of money found credited in the bank account. In case of bank account, the assessee is obliged to explain the nature and source of the money deposited irrespective of whether he is maintaining books of accounts or not. 8.3 The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v/s Jauharimal Goyal [2005] 147 taxmann 448 (All) held that "Deposit in the Bank account would amount to investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act". 8.4 It has been held in CIT v/s Shiv Shakti Timbers (1997) 90 taxmann 349 (MP), by Hon'ble MP High Court that a close reading of sections 68 and 69 makes it clear that in the case of section 68 there should be a credit entry in the books of account whereas in the case of section 69, there may not be an entry in the books of account. 8.5 The appellant has relied upon CIT v/s Bhaichand N. Gandhi (supra) that addition u/s 69A can only be made with the money is not recorded in the assessee's books of account and the bank passbook is not books of account. It is observed from a perusal of the said case law that there the addition was made u/s 68 of the Act. The decision is not applicable to the facts of this case as here the addition has been made u/s 69A of the Act. Thus, the legal objection raised by the appellant is not tenable and the same is rejected. 9. Through ground No. 3, the appellant has challenged the addition on the ground that once withdrawal is there, the onus is on the AO to prove that the said money was used by the assessee for some other purpose. 9.1 This legal objection is also incorrect as u/s 69A of the Act, the onus of proven the source of acquisition is on the assessee. This ground is also dismissed. 10. Demonetization of Rs. 500 and Rs.1000 bank notes was announced by the Hon'ble Prime Minister on 08.11.2016. The purpose was inter-alia to unearth 11 IT(IT)A No. 07/JP/2022 Madhur Raheja, Jaipur vs. ITO,Circle (IT), Jaipur black money which was stashed in the form of high denomination notes. General Public was allowed to deposit the demonetized bank notes between the period 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. Failure in submitting satisfactory explanation in this regard before the AO and again not submitting any explanation during the appellate stage despite having repeated opportunities clearly shows that the appellant is not in a position to explain the source of these huge cash deposits. The only inference which can be drawn out of these facts and circumstances is that the appellant has deposited her unaccounted money in the bank account. 10.1 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishan Kumar vs. ITO [2019] 107 taxmann.com 464 (SC) has upheld the addition made by AO under section 69A where the assessee had failed to satisfactorily explain the source of cash deposit. 10.2 The issues relevant to the demonetization of high denomination notes was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Sreelekha Banerjee v Commissioner of Income-tax [1963] 49 ITR (SC) 112. [1964] 2 SCR 552 (SC). The court held that where assessee contended that high denomination notes represented not cash balance but some other money and he failed to explain source of said money, department was justified in treating value of said high denomination notes as income of assessee from undisclosed sources. Where the explanation of assessee was unconvincing and one which deserves to be rejected, the department can reject the explanation and draw the inference that the amount represents income either from the sources already disclosed by the assessee or from some undisclosed source. The Court observed: "Where the assessee was unable to prove that in his normal business or otherwise, he was possessed of so much cash, it was held that the assessee started under a cloud and must dispel that cloud to the reasonable satisfaction of the assessing authorities, and that if he did not, then, the department was free to reject his explanation and to hold that the amount represented income from some undisclosed source" 10.3 Further, in cases relating to the issue of source of demonetized currency, Hon'ble High Courts of Patna and Calcutta in Chunilal Rastogi vs. CIT [1955] 28 ITR 341 (Pat.). Anil Kumar Singh vs. CIT [1972] 84 ITR 307 (Cal.) and M. L. Tewary vs. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 630 (PAT.), have respectively held that where the assessee could not satisfactorily prove source and nature of amount which he encased on demonetization, revenue authorities were perfectly justified in drawing an inference that said sum was of an income nature. 12 IT(IT)A No. 07/JP/2022 Madhur Raheja, Jaipur vs. ITO,Circle (IT), Jaipur 10.4 Hon'ble ITAT Delhi has in Leela Devi VS ITO (ITAT Delhi) [ITA. No. 1423/Del/1420] has upheld addition of unexplained cash deposit in the bank account in AY 2017-18 i.e. during the demonetization period. 10.5 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering that the appellant has failed to submit any explanation or evidence regarding the source of cash in the bank account, it is concluded that the appellant had deposit her own undisclosed money in the bank account during the demonetization period. The appellant has failed to explain the source of the same, the addition of cash deposit of Rs.23.17,910/- u/s 69A of the Act made by the AO is confirmed. 11. The appellant did not submit any explanation regarding credit entries in the PNB and bank interest even during the assessment proceedings. A number of hearings were fixed and the appellant made same submission multiple times which is reproduced above. As despite having repeated opportunities, the appellant has failed to submit any explanation regarding the credit entries aggregating to Rs. 48,23,486/- appearing in the appellant's bank account with PNB and bank interest of Rs. 4,505/-, the additions made by the AO are confirmed. It is pertinent to note that the appellant has not even raised any specific ground of appeal in respect of these additions. 12. Ground No. 4 seeks stay on the demand. As the additions have been sustained, I find no reason to stay the demand. This ground is dismissed.” 8. As the assessee not finding any favor in an appeal filed before the first appellate authority have preferred this appeal on the grounds as raised and reiterated in para 2 above. The ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee relied on the submission filed before the ld. CIT(A) placed on record in a detailed paper book and the index of the papers submitted is extracted here in below:- S. No. Particulars Page No. 1 Copy of reply filed with ITO ward 1(2), Jaipur dated 27-09-2019. 1-1 2 Copy of notice dated 24-10-2019 issued under section 142(1) of the Act 2-4 13 IT(IT)A No. 07/JP/2022 Madhur Raheja, Jaipur vs. ITO,Circle (IT), Jaipur 3 Copy of reply filed with DCIT, International Taxation, Jaipur dated 02-12- 2019. 5-6 4 Copy of notice dated 03-12-2019 issued under section 142(1) of the Act 7-8 5 Copy of show cause notice dated 10-12-2019 issued by the A.O. 9-11 6 Copy of written submission filed with Ld CIT Appeal, dated 01-02-2021. 12-18 7 Copy of written submission filed with Ld CIT Appeal, dated 04-05-2021. 19-24 8 Copy of cash book for the period 1-4-2015 to 31-03-2017 25-27 9 Copy of bank statement with SBI(A/c no 62451781205) 28-42 10 Copy of bank statement with SBI(A/c no 62475163394) 43-45 11 Copy of bank statement with SBI(A/c no 62479079995) 46-49 12 Copy of bank statement with SBI(A/c no 62460695393) 50-59 13 Copy of bank statement with SBI(A/c no 62470713162) 60-65 14 Copy of bank statement with SBI(A/c no 62468743056) 66-71 15 Copy of bank statement with SBI(A/c no 62460743019) 72-77 16 Copy of bank statement with SBI(A/c no 62467733923) 78-81 17 Copy of bank statement with PNB(A/c no 1939000100759442 82-90 The ld. AR of the assessee also submitted a cash flow chart vide letter dated 25.09.2022 the same is also reiterated here in below : Sub.:- Submission of consolidated cash flow chart in the case of Madhur Raheja, ITITA No. 07/JPR/2022. Fixed for hearing 27-09-2022. Respected Hon'ble Members, We are submitting a consolidated cash flow, chart of cash withdrawal and deposit activities, made out of bank accounts maintained by the assessee. The chart has been prepared from previously submitted bank statements with the Paper Book for the convenience of the Hon'ble Bench. It is requested that same may kindly be accepted. 14 IT(IT)A No. 07/JP/2022 Madhur Raheja, Jaipur vs. ITO,Circle (IT), Jaipur 15 IT(IT)A No. 07/JP/2022 Madhur Raheja, Jaipur vs. ITO,Circle (IT), Jaipur 9. In addition to the above evidence the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the ld. AO has not doubted the source of withdrawal of cash 16 IT(IT)A No. 07/JP/2022 Madhur Raheja, Jaipur vs. ITO,Circle (IT), Jaipur from the bank account and therefore, since the same is from the explained source the redeposit of the same shall not form part of the income in the hands of the assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee relying on the decision in the case of Shri Sunil Mathur in ITA no. 660/JP/2019 submitted that the facts being identical the same may be considered while deciding this appeal. The ld. AR of the assessee relying on the cash flow chart submitted that the assessee is having sufficient cash balance available and the same was withdrawn from the bank account for renovation of parental house and the money so deposited is sourced from the bank account only. The lower authorities have based on surmised and conjectures made the additions of Rs. 48,23,486/- without issuing any show cause notice and Rs. 23,17,910/- without considering the submission of the assessee. Therefore, the addition is made without giving any chance to the assessee to represent their contentions and for that he submitted the assessee may be given a chance to substantiate his case before the ld. AO. 10. On the other hand, ld. DR is heard who has relied on the findings of the lower authorities and submitted that the contention of the assessee that he was not given sufficient opportunity is wrong. On 08.11.2019 the AO issued a show cause notice where the assessee was asked to prove the 17 IT(IT)A No. 07/JP/2022 Madhur Raheja, Jaipur vs. ITO,Circle (IT), Jaipur source of all credit entries in the bank account vide para 4 of the order of the ld. AO and assessee remained silent and not submitted any explanations with the evidences. Thus, this contention of the assessee is not maintainable. Not only that there is no cogent material placed on record by the ld. AR of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) and before this tribunal about the self-served statement advanced by the assessee. But merely stated that out of Rs. 48,23,486/-, Rs. 12,22,610/- is sourced from the withdrawal made from the account and therefore, explanation is to be submitted for 36,00,876/- only and this version of the assessee proves that the statement of the assessee is general and has not tried to explain the source of Rs. 36,00,876/-. The assessee is doing business and withdrawal of cash from the overdraft account may have been used elsewhere and thus, cannot be considered as cash kept idle/available where the interest is mounting on over draft account. Thus, the explanation of the assessee is not convincing and not supported by any cogent evidence and the case law relied where in the money was not withdrawn from the over draft account and money was from the credit available with the assessee. Therefore, the facts of the case relied upon is not similar cannot be applied with the facts of this case. Therefore, for both the additions made there is no cogent explanation is placed on record before the ld. AO, ld. CIT(A) and before us 18 IT(IT)A No. 07/JP/2022 Madhur Raheja, Jaipur vs. ITO,Circle (IT), Jaipur also by the assessee even though the ld. AO has specifically asked the assessee to explain all the entries in the bank account based on these arguments ld. DR submitted that there is no meaning, in giving the assessee a second chance to explain these credits. The ld. DR also emphasized that the mother of the assessee gone 56 times to deposit the cash in bank account, the answer of the assessee is not supported with evidence and therefore, the version of the assessee cannot be believed under the tax laws even the explanation suggest the other intention of the assessee to avoid the legitimate tax and based on these observations he heavily supported the order of the lower authorities. 11. In the rejoinder the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the cash deposit and withdrawal was for house renovation and out of Rs. 48,23,486/- Rs. 12,22,610 is sourced from the cash withdrawal and therefore, the same is required to be reduced to avoid double taxation of the same money. 12. We have considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the authorities and the material available on record arguments advanced by both the parties and also gone through the judicial decision relied upon by the ld. AR of the assessee. The bench noted that the facts of the decision 19 IT(IT)A No. 07/JP/2022 Madhur Raheja, Jaipur vs. ITO,Circle (IT), Jaipur relied upon are different with that of this case and therefore, the same is not considered. The bench also noted that the assessee not serious about the perusing the case as the chart for explaining credit entries wherein summation of cash withdraw is for Rs. 37,45,900 and cash deposit is for Rs. 28,99,560/- whereas the credit added in the assessment order is for Rs. 71,41,396/-. Thus, we see no merits in the arguments of the ld. AR of the assessee as the averments made by the ld. AR of the assessee is contradictory from the facts placed before us and he failed to explain these credits wretchedly. We have also observed that the withdrawals were made from the overdraft against the fixed deposit of the assessee and there is convincing answer for depositing small amount on 56 times. The ld. AR of the assessee did not present the correct facts even in this second appeal seriously and has not demonstrated as what is the real facts of withdrawal from the overdraft account even the withdrawals are not matching the credit so as to believe the arguments advanced by the assessee. The bench also noted that though the assessee is claiming that engaged in the business or profession and have offered the 10 % profit on the turnover assessee filed the return of income but in that return instead of non resident the assessee declared the resident status, this shows the causal approach of the assessee in dealing with the tax matters. The assessee is not coming with 20 IT(IT)A No. 07/JP/2022 Madhur Raheja, Jaipur vs. ITO,Circle (IT), Jaipur the clear facts, correct state of affairs. Revenue has also pinpointed apparent observation about the evidence placed on record that the account from where the cash withdrawal made is overdraft account, the assessee has remained silent in submission of explanation of all credits, the chart of cash deposit and withdrawal submitted before us is also not explained the amount of credit appearing in the bank account of the assessee. As the assessment order is passed u/s. 144 of the Act and we are of the considered view that facts have surfaced in piece meal at each stage and from time to time as the assessee attempted to fill in the gaps about inferences drawn by the lower authorities. Consequently, a cohesive verification of the averments appears to be scrutinized a fresh so as to grant the effective justice to the assessee before the amount of the addition treated as unexplained credits in the bank account and be finalized as income of the assessee. The assessee has not bothered to submit the exact amount of cash withdrawal for renovation, there exist no reasoning by the assessee that out of total credits in the bank account what is sourced from cash withdrawal whether the credit and withdrawal matches or not, the chart that ld. AR of the assessee placed before us shows withdrawal of Rs. 37,45,900/- only, whereas credit in the account is for Rs. 23,17,910 and the addition made is much more. Thus, the averments of the assessee 21 IT(IT)A No. 07/JP/2022 Madhur Raheja, Jaipur vs. ITO,Circle (IT), Jaipur revolving and is not supported by cogent evidence specifying the balance available and the source of the same, so as to justify how much exactly amount sourced from withdrawal for the renovation. The ld. AR of the assessee also failed to answer that what is the time lag period for which the decision was made and changed, whether the assessee has used the cash withdrawal made and what is the withdrawal amount vis a vis to the amount deposited in the bank account. All these questions are not coming from the arguments and the ld. AR of the assessee did not support the contentions raised before us as well as with the lower authorities. Thus, there exist conflict in the claim about the existence of cash available with the assessee and the amount of credit under question and its source. As the ld. AR of the assessee pleaded that the lower authorities have not given sufficient time and opportunity to represent his case for the second addition [ ld. DR objected that the assessee has not submitted explanation even though the notice was issued by the AO to explain all the credit entries in the bank account ] and has violated the principles of natural justice. Looking to these facts and in the entirety of facts and circumstances without commenting on merits of the case we are inclined to set a side the issue for both the addition in the interest of justice with a direction to the ld. AO to examine all the aspects of the amount credited in the bank accounts of the assessee 22 IT(IT)A No. 07/JP/2022 Madhur Raheja, Jaipur vs. ITO,Circle (IT), Jaipur and to decide afresh after considering the entire evidences and giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose only, without commenting on the merits of the case. Order pronounced in the open court on 09/11/2022 Sd/- Sd/- ¼ lanhi xkslkbZ ½ ¼ jkBkSM deys’k t;arHkkbZ ½ (Sandeep Gosain) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 09/11/2022 *Ganesh Kumar vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Madhur Raheja, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Income Tax Officer Circle, International Taxation, Jaipur. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (IT(IT)A No. 07/JP/2022) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar