Mr.Mahmood H. Musavi, Pune v. Asst. CIT Central Circle-1(2),, Pune

ITA 1232/PUN/2010 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2015 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 123224514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN ABBPN0508R
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 1232/PUN/2010
Duration Of Justice 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 8 day(s)
Appellant Mr.Mahmood H. Musavi, Pune
Respondent Asst. CIT Central Circle-1(2),, Pune
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-04-2015
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 30-04-2015
Date Of Final Hearing 27-04-2015
Next Hearing Date 27-04-2015
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 21-09-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A PUNE BEFORE M S SUSHMA CHOWLA JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1 232 /PN/201 0 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 7 - 0 8 MR. MAHMOOD H. MUSAVI 301/302 SUNNY CLIMES 951 NANA PETH PUNE 4 1 1 00 2 . APPELLANT PAN: A BBPN0508R VS. VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2) PUNE . . RESPONDENT A PPELLANT BY : S HRI NIKHIL PATHAK RESPONDENT BY : SHRI CHANDIP SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 2 9 - 0 4 - 201 5 DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 30 - 0 4 - 201 5 ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA J M : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT ( A) - I V PUNE DATED 24 . 0 6 .201 0 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7 - 0 8 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 153A(B) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT 1961 . 2 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW: - 1) THE LEARNED C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) - IV WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.38 76 523/ - AS UN - E XPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S.68 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. THE LEARNED C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) - IV PUNE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE CASH OF RS.38 76 523/ - WAS DEPOSITED IN BANK OUT OF CASH IN HAND AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND HENCE YOUR APPELLANT REQUEST FO R DELETION OF THE SAID ADDITION. 2) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ALTER OR DELETE OF ANY OF ABOVE GROUND IN APPEAL. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.38 76 523/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. ITA NO . 1 232 /PN/20 1 0 MR. MAHMOOD H. MUSAVI 2 4. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BUILDER AND DEVELOPER. SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS OFFICE PREMISES AT M.G. ROAD PUNE ON 21.09.2006. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.26 LAKHS RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT ON SALE OF AHMEDNAGAR LAND. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.2 4 LAKHS FOR THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION FROM TRADING IN CARS AND RS. 1 50 000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN HOUSEHOLD ARTICLES. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUE UNDER SECTION 153 A OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE RETUR N OF INCOME IN WHICH HE CLAIMS THAT RS.1 50 000/ - WAS DECLARED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WHEREAS RS.24 LAKHS WAS DE CLARED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. WITH REGARD TO THE PROFIT ON SALE OF AHMEDNAGAR LAND THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME LAND BELONGED TO M/S. RADIANT CONSTRUCTIONS I.E. THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM OF THE ASSESSEE AND BY AN ERROR THE ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS PARTNERSHIP FIRM OF THE ASSESSEE AND BY AN ERROR THE ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS OFFERED IN HIS HANDS. HOWEVER THE SAME WAS OFFERED IN THE CASE OF M/S. RADIANT CONSTRUCTIONS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06. IN THE POST SEA RCH ENQUIRIES THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED ON 12.10.2006 AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO CONFIRM THE CASH BALANCE AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN CASH BALANCE OF RS .2.92 CRORES IN HIS BOOKS AS ON DATE OF SEARCH AND HE STATED THAT HE KEPT THE CASH BALANCE WITH HIS ACCOUNTANT WHO WAS OUT OF TOWN. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON 10.12.2008 THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF MS. RAJANI BHALE RAO ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE WHO HAD BEEN WORKING WITH TH E ASSESSEE SINCE 1993 . IN THE SAID STATEMENT THE LADY ADMITTED TO HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE ASSESSEE BUT SHE DENIED ANY CASH OR MONEY OR SUM WAS KEPT BY THE ASSESSEE WITH HER. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE STATEMENT IS REPRODUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R UNDER PARA 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. FURTHER STATEMENT OF THE RECEPTIONIST MS. NAZNEEN ISMAIL SHAIK OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO RECORDED ON 10.12.2008 IN WHICH SHE ALSO DENIED TO HAVE ANY CONNECTION ITA NO . 1 232 /PN/20 1 0 MR. MAHMOOD H. MUSAVI 3 WITH THE ACCOUNTS OR CASH TRANSACTIONS OR ANY OTHER FI NANCIAL MATTERS OF THE ASSESSEE OR OF HIS CONCERNS. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE STATEMENT OF THE LADY IS REPRODUCED UNDER PARA 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER WAS GIVEN A CHANCE OF REBUTTAL AND HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED ON 16.12.2008 IN WHICH HE ADMITTED THAT ONE MR. THAKKAR WAS WORKING WITH HIM IN M/S. RADIANT CONSTRUCTIONS AS ACCOUNTANT WHO LEFT THE SERVICE IN JULY / AUGUST 2006. THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER STATED THAT HE USED TO KEEP PART OF HIS CASH IN HAND WITH HIM AS HE WAS LOO KING AFTER NOT ONLY HIS ACCOUNTS BUT ALSO THE DAY - TO - DAY BUSINESS NEEDS. FURTHER SOME CASH IN HAND WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN KEPT WITH HIS FRIEND MR. AAMIR KHAN WHO STAYS NEAR AIRPORT PUNE. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE IS REPRODUCED UNDER PARA 7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID STATEMENT S RECORDED THE ASSESSING OFFICER QUESTIONED THE VALIDITY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN KEEPING CASH TO THE TUNE OF RS.1.20 CRORES WITH HIS ACCOUNTANT AND CASH OF RS.1.72 CROR ES WITH THE FRIEND OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED RS.1.72 CROR ES WITH THE FRIEND OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE NO REFERENCE ABOUT THE SAID PERSONS IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED ON 12.10.2006 BUT IN THE REBUTTAL THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS OTHERWISE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE CASH ACTUALLY FOUND AT THE RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS PREMISES WAS THE CASH AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. ANOTHER POINT NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LEADING A LAVISH LIFE STYLE WHICH WAS APPARENT FROM THE EXPEN DITURE THROUGH HIS CREDIT CARD AND THE VARIOUS BILLS AND VOUCHERS FOUND IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS EXPENDITURE INCURRED OVER THE PERIOD OF TIME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK NOTE OF ABOUT FIVE VOUCHERS UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED CERTAIN EXPENDITURE I .E. RS.2 LAKHS AS CHARITY PAID TO POONAWAL A MASJID TRUST SMALLER EXPENSES OF RS. 462 / - AND RS. 2 0 72/ - AND TELEPHONE BILLS OF RS.11 356/ - . IN VIEW THEREOF THE CONCLUSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDI TURE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH WAS EXPENDED OUT OF CASH IN HAND APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THAT IS WHY THE CASH WAS NOT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ASSESSING ITA NO . 1 232 /PN/20 1 0 MR. MAHMOOD H. MUSAVI 4 OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT CASH OF RS.83 000/ - WAS FOUND AT THE R ESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO CASH WAS FOUND FROM THE OFFICE PREMISES HENCE THE CASH IN HAND AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH 12.09.2006 WAS RS.83 000/ - . THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD MADE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK OUT OF CASH IN HAND AVAILABLE IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS REJECTED AND ONLY CREDIT OF THE OPENING CASH IN HAND OF RS.83 000/ - AND WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM THE MONTH TO MONTH WAS ALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DEFICIT OF RS.38 76 533/ - BEING HIGHEST NEGATIVE CASH WAS TREATED A S UNEXPLAINED CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE CIT(A) AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FACTUAL ASPECTS AND THE STATEMENTS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSEE AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE VIS - - VIS CASH IN HAND SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ITS AVAILABILITY OBSERVED THAT HOLDING OF SUCH HUGE CASH BALANCE DESPITE THE AVAILABILITY OF BANKING FACILITIES WAS NOT EXPLAINABLE . T HE CIT(A) UPHELD THE FINDING OF ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE CASH AVAILABLE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS NOT EXISTING IN REALITY AND THE ASSESSEE HAD UTILIZED THE SAME FOR PERSONAL USE AND FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CORRECTLY HELD THAT NO CASH WAS AVAILABLE AND THE BOOK ENTRY HAD TO BE CORRECTED. THE EXPLANAT ION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD UTILIZED THE CASH AVAILABLE IN THE BOOKS FOR DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK SUBSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH WAS REJECTED BY THE CIT(A) AND THE ADDITION OF RS. 38 76 523/ - WAS UPHELD IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 7. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE CASH IN HAND AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF SEARCH WAS RS.2.92 CRORES WHICH WAS NOT FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE CERTAIN ENQUIRIES FROM TWO OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ITA NO . 1 232 /PN/20 1 0 MR. MAHMOOD H. MUSAVI 5 RECORDED DURING THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CASH REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON THE DATE OF SEARCH HAS BEEN SPENT BY THE ASSESSEE ON VARIOUS EXPENDITURES. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE PHOTO COPY OF PART OF CA SH BOOK WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 26 TO 32 OF THE PAPER BOOK IN WHICH THE CASH ENTRIES WERE REFLECTED WHICH IN TURN WERE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE OR CERTAIN EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED OUT OF CASH IN HAND. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRES ENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE BALANCE SHEET PLACED AT PAGE 24 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE CLOSING CASH IN HAND POSITION AS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 32 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND POINTED OUT THAT THE AVAILABLE CASH IN HAND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS ON CLOSIN G OF THE YEAR WAS RS.4.17 CRORES WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN CIT VS. K. SREEDHARAN (1993) 201 ITR 101 0 (K ER ) WHEREIN THE HONBLE KERAL A HIGH COURT HAD HELD THE CREDIT OF CASH WITHDRAWALS AFTER FOUR YEARS OF THE DATE OF WITHDRAWAL. CREDIT OF CASH WITHDRAWALS AFTER FOUR YEARS OF THE DATE OF WITHDRAWAL. 8. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND POINTED OUT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH SUM OF RS.83 000/ - WAS FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE . THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WAS REST OF THE CASH WAS WITH THE ACCOUNTANT. HOWEVER THE ACCOUNTANT DENIED HAVING RECEIVED ANY MONEY OR HAVING KEPT ANY CASH IN HAND OF THE ASSESSEE. IN REBUTTAL WH EN THE STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED HE TALKS OF TWO NEW PERSONS WHICH HE HAD NOT REFERRED IN THE ORIGINAL STATEMENT. ACCORDINGLY NO RELIANCE COULD BE PLACED ON THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION BEING GIVEN VIS - - VIS THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND / OR EXPENSES MADE IN CASH THE SAME HAD TO BE ADDED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WERE CARRIED OUT AT THE RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 21.09.2006. AS ON THE DATE ITA NO . 1 232 /PN/20 1 0 MR. MAHMOOD H. MUSAVI 6 OF SEARCH THE CASH BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE R EFLECTED CASH OF RS.2.92 CRORES. THE SAID ENTRIES IN RESPECT OF CASH IN HAND WERE AVAILABLE IN THE CASH BOOK ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. HOWEVER DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ONLY CASH TO THE EXTENT OF RS.83 000/ - WAS FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RESIDENTIAL PREMISES AND NO CASH IN HAND WAS FOUND FROM THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE STATEMEN T OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED DURING THE POST SEARCH ENQUIRIES AND VIDE QUESTION NO.7 THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO CONFIRM THE CASH BALANCE AS ON DATE OF SEARCH. IN REPLY THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE SAID CASH BALANCE WAS WORKED OUT AFTER CONSIDERING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND BANK BOOKS. HE FURTHER STATED THAT AS PER HIS NORMAL PRACTICE HE KEEPS THE CASH WITH HIS ACCOUNTANT WHO IS OUT OF TOWN. IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ADDITION TO CARRYING ON THE SOLE PROPRIETOR BUSINESS WAS ALSO A PAR TNER IN PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S. RADIANT CONSTRUCTIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF MS. RAJANI BHALERAO ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE AND MS. NAZNEEN ISMAIL SHAIK RAJANI BHALERAO ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE AND MS. NAZNEEN ISMAIL SHAIK RECEPTIONIST OF THE ASSESSEE BO TH OF THEM HAVE DENIED TO BE IN POSSESSION OF ANY CASH ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ORDER TO GIVE A CHANCE OF REBUTTAL TO THE ASSESSEE RECORDED HIS STATEMENT ON 16.12.2008 IN WHICH HE EXPLAINED THAT THE MONEY WAS KEPT WITH ONE MR. THAK KAR WHO WAS WORKING WITH HIM IN M/S. RADIANT CONSTRUCTIONS AS ACCOUNTANT. HOWEVER THE SAID PERSON HAD LEFT JOB IN JULY / AUGUST 2006. AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AS PER THE ASSESSEE APPROXIMATELY RS.1.20 CRORES WAS KEPT WITH HIM WHICH WAS RECOVERED FROM H IM IN FINANCIAL YEAR ENDING 31 ST MARCH 2007. FURTHER SUM OF RS.1.72 CRORES THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE HAD KEPT WITH ONE OF HIS FRIENDS WHO ALSO RETURNED THE SAID CASH TO THE ASSESSEE. ADMITTEDLY ON THE DATE OF SEARCH CASH TO THE TUNE OF RS.83 000 / - WAS FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE AS AGAINST THE CASH IN HAND RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AT RS.2.9 2 CRORES. NO FURTHER ENQUIRIES OR INVESTIGATION WAS MADE BY THE SEARCH TEAM AND EVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE AT THE CLOS E OF THE YEAR I.E. 31.03.2007 HAS DECLARED CASH IN HAND OF RS.4.17 CRORES IN ITS BOOKS OF ITA NO . 1 232 /PN/20 1 0 MR. MAHMOOD H. MUSAVI 7 ACCOUNT WHICH IN TURN HAS BEEN DECLARED IN THE BALANCE SHEET FILED AS ON 31.03.2007 . THE SAID CASH IN HAND OF RS.4.17 CRORES AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AS ON THE C LOSE OF THE YEAR HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AND THERE ARE NO ADVERSE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO THE SAID CASH IN HAND. HOWEVER WITH REGARD TO THE CASH IN HAN D AS ON DATE OF SEARCH I.E. OF RS.2.92 CRORES THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT THE SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN SPENT BY THE ASSESSEE ON HIS LAVISH LIFE STYLE AND THAT IS WHY THE SAME WAS NOT FOUND AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE SAID FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE FOUND TO ESTABLISH THAT THE CASH IN HAND RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAS BEEN EXPENDED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS MAD E REFERENCE TO CERTAIN EXPENDITURES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE EVIDENCE OF WHICH WAS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH I.E. ONE VOUCHER OF CHARITY TO POONAWALA MASJID TRUST OF RS.2 LAKHS CASH PAYMENT OF VOUCHER OF CHARITY TO POONAWALA MASJID TRUST OF RS.2 LAKHS CASH PAYMENT OF TELEPHONE BILLS OF RS. 11 356/ - EXPENDITURE OF RS.4 6 2 272/ - AND ANOTHER VOUCHER OF RS.41 996/ - EXPENDED IN CASH. THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REFLECTS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED AND UNACCOUNTED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 2 02 072/ - RS.41 996/ - AND RS.11 818/ - WHI CH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO GROUND OF APPEAL IN THIS REGARD WAS RAISED BEFORE THE CIT(A). ONCE THE SAID EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE UNEXPLAINED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE THE SAME VOUCHERS CANNOT BE RELIED ON TO HOLD THAT THE CASH RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS ON DATE OF SEARCH IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AS THE SAME HAS BEEN SPENT ON VARIOUS ITEMS INCLUDING THE VOUCHERS FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ENTIRETY OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REVERSING THE SAME WE HOLD THAT THE CASH AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS ON DATE OF SEARCH WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING CASH DEPOSITS OR INCURRING EXPENDITURE I N CASH FROM MONTH TO MONTH WHICH IN TURN HAS BEEN DEBITED TO THE ITA NO . 1 232 /PN/20 1 0 MR. MAHMOOD H. MUSAVI 8 CASH IN HAND OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND BALANCE CASH IN HAND OF RS.4.17 CRORES HAD BEEN DECLARED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IN TURN HAS BEEN ACC EPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . IN VIEW THEREOF WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.38 76 523/ - . THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER P RONOUNCED ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF APRIL 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - ( R.K. PANDA ) ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE DATED: 30 TH APRIL 2015 GCVSR GCVSR COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : - 1) TH E ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT( A ) - I V PUNE ; 4) THE CIT IV PUNE ; 5) THE DR A BENCH I.T.A.T. PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T. PUNE