ITO, WD-23(4), HOOGHLY, Hooghly v. Sri Swarup Chand Mondal, Hooghly

ITA 1295/KOL/2015 | 2011-2012
Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2016

Appeal Details

RSA Number 129523514 RSA 2015
Assessee PAN AEDPM4362C
Bench Kolkata
Appeal Number ITA 1295/KOL/2015
Duration Of Justice 11 month(s) 14 day(s)
Appellant ITO, WD-23(4), HOOGHLY, Hooghly
Respondent Sri Swarup Chand Mondal, Hooghly
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-09-2016
Appeal Filed By Department
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 28-09-2016
Assessment Year 2011-2012
Appeal Filed On 14-10-2015
Judgment Text
I.T.A. NO. 1295/KOL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-2012 PAGE 1 OF 7 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA C(SMC) BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1295 /KOL/ 2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-2012 INCOME TAX OFFICER ................................ .......................................APPELLANT WARD-23(4) HOOGHLY AAYAKAR BHAVAN KHADINA MORE HOOGHLY-712 101 -VS.- SHRI SWARUP CHAND MONDAL .......................... .............................RESPONDENT B.K. ROY SUPER MARKET P.O. ARAMBAGH DIST. HOOGHLY-712 601 [PAN: AEDPM 4362 C] APPEARANCES BY: SHRI RAJENDRA PRASAD JCIT D.R. FOR THE DEPARTMENT SHRI SUNIL SURANA FCA FOR THE ASSESSEE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JULY 28 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : SEPTEMBER 28 2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-6 KOLKATA DAT ED 26.08.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE THEREIN READ AS UNDER:- (1) WHETHER THE CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW BY VIOLA TING RULE 46A IN NOT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO WH ILE ACCEPTING THE COMPUTATION OF PEAK CREDIT WHICH ACCO RDING TO HIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR ADDITION. (2) WHETHER THE CIT(A) ERRED IN FACT AS WELL AS IN LAW IN ACCEPTING THE METHOD OF COMPUTATION OF PEAK CREDIT BY THE ASSESSEE WHO HAD EVIDENTLY NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE DEBIT ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT HAD INDEED BEEN ROUTED BACK AS SOME OF THE CREDIT ENTRIES TO REDUCE THE TOTAL INCO ME OF RS.41 94 000/- TO ONLY RS.9 79 326/-. I.T.A. NO. 1295/KOL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-2012 PAGE 2 OF 7 (3) WHETHER THE CIT(A) ERRED IN FACT IN NOT REPRODU CING OR NOT ENCLOSING THE SAID COMPUTATION OF PEAK CREDIT W ITH OR IN THE APPELLATE ORDER. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUA L WHO IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF WHOLESALE RICE TRADING. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED BY HIM ON 30.09.2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.6 20 250/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS MAINTAINED TWO BANK ACCOUNTS WITH BANK OF INDIA BULCHANDRAPUR BRA NCH AND AXIS BANK BURDWAN BRANCH WHICH WERE NOT REFLECTED IN THE FIN ANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO NOTICED THAT THERE WAS SUBSTA NTIAL DEPOSIT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SAID TWO BANK ACCOUNTS DURING T HE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THIS REGARD THE EXPLANATION OFFE RED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER INTER ALIA WAS THAT THE CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM THE SAID BANK ACCOUNTS WERE AVAILABLE AND UTILIZED FOR MAKING DEPOSITS ON THE SUBSEQUENT DATES. IT WAS ALSO SUBMI TTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE OPENING BALANCE IN THE SAID ACCOUNTS AMOUN TING TO RS.5 79 326/- AS WELL AS THE GIFT OF RS.4 00 000/- RECEIVED BY HI M FROM HIS MOTHER-IN- LAW IN CASH WAS AVAILABLE FOR HIM TO EXPLAIN THE CA SH DEPOSITS FOUND TO BE MADE IN THE SAID TWO BANK ACCOUNTS. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND H E PROCEEDED TO ADD THE ENTIRE DEPOSIT OF RS.42 00 416/- FOUND TO BE MA DE IN THE TWO BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE TO ITS TOTAL INCOME IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) VIDE AN ORDER DATED 26.03.2014 . 3. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R UNDER SECTION 143(3) AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DISPUTING THE ADDITION OF RS.42 00 416 /- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITS FOUND TO B E MADE IN HIS TWO BANK ACCOUNTS AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD THE LD. C IT(APPEALS) RESTRICTED THE SAID ADDITION TO RS.6 416/- ONLY THEREBY GIVING RELIEF OF I.T.A. NO. 1295/KOL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-2012 PAGE 3 OF 7 RS.41 94 000/- FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN P ARAGRAPH NO. 5 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER:- I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS. AS REGARDS THE CLAIM OF TH E APPELLANT THAT A GIFT IN CASH OF RS.4 00 000/- WERE RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT THE APPELLANT HAS PROVED THE IDENTITY OF THE DONOR. THE DONOR I.E. THE MOTHER-IN-LAW OF THE APPELLANT C ONFIRMED IN HER STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE AO DURING HER PERSONA L ATTENDANCE THAT SHE HAD MADE THE GIFT. SHE GAVE DET AILS OF HER SOURCES OF INCOME WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY T HE AO. THE ONLY REASON GIVEN BY THE AO FOR THE REJECTION OF TH E GIFT AS GENUINE IS THAT IT WAS STATED BY THE DONOR THAT THE GIFT HAD BEEN MADE AS PER THE NEEDS OF THE APPELLANT. THE REASON GIVEN BY THE AO FOR REJECTION OF THE CONFIRMATION OF THE DONOR D URING HER PERSONAL ATTENDANCE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DISBELIEVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND THE DONOR'S CAPA CITY TO PAY. HENCE THE GIFT OF RS.4.00 000/- CLAIMED TO HAVE BE EN DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT WITH AXIS BANK ON 22.04.2010 IS HELD TO BE GENUINE AND THE SECOND GRO UND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THE TOTAL OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS . 41 37 606/- (INCLUDING INTEREST OF RS. 5 606/-) IN THE SAID BAN K ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE AO TO BE UNEXPLAINED AND WAS ADDED BACK AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE APPELLANT'S CASE IS THAT TH E DEPOSITS IN THE SAID AMOUNT ARE EXPLAINED EITHER BY THE OPENING BALANCE OF RS.5 79 326/.- OR THE CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE BEFORE THE IMPUGNED CASH DEPOSITS. I FIND THAT THE PEAK BALANC E IN THE SAID ACCOUNT WAS RS.9 79 326/- AS ON 22.04.2010 WHICH IS EXPLAINED BY THE OPENING BALANCE OF RS.5 79 326/- FOLLOWED BY CASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS.5 00 000/- ON 03.04.2010 AND SUBSE QUENT CASH DEPOSIT OF THE SAME TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.5 00 000/-(R S.2 00 000/- ON 17.04.2010 AND RS.3 00 000/- ON 19.04.2010) AND CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.4 00 000/- ON 22.04.2010 HELD ABOVE T O BE EXPLAINED BY THE CASH GIFT FROM THE APPELLANT'S MOT HER-IN-LAW. THE SUBSEQUENT CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AR E LESS THAN THE AGGREGATE OF THE CASH WITHDRAWALS ON PRIOR DATE S. FURTHER THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.12 000/- ON 12.11.2010 AND RS.50 000/- ON 31.12.2010 IN THE APPELLANT'S BANK ACCOUNT WITH BANK OF INDIA ARE LESS THAN THE PROXIMATE CASH WITHDRAWALS OF RS. 1 30 000/- ON 29.10.2010 AND RS.3 50 000/ - ON 06.1 2.2010 FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH AXIS BANK. THE APPELLANT HAS NOTED VARIOUS JUDICIAL DECISIONS TO STATE THAT COMBINED P EAK CASH BALANCE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNTS AFTER CONSIDERING THE PRIOR CASH WITHDRAWALS ONLY CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR ADDITION IF ANY. IT IS QUITE LOGICAL TO INFER THAT DEPOSITS MADE OUT OF WI THDRAWALS MADE PRIOR TO THE SAID DEPOSITS WOULD HAVE COME OUT OF THE PRECEDING WITHDRAWALS UNLESS THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE WITHDRAWALS HAVE BEEN MADE FOR A SPECIFIC PURPO SE AND NOT FOUND THEIR WAY BACK INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT AS DEPOS ITS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON R ECORD TO PROVE THAT THE CASH WITHDRAWN BY THE APPELLANT WOUL D NOT HAVE FOUND ITS WAY BACK INTO THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT. IT H AS BEEN HELD TIME' AND AGAIN IN VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS THAT WHERE I.T.A. NO. 1295/KOL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-2012 PAGE 4 OF 7 IN RESPECT OF A BANK ACCOUNT THERE ARE INSTANCES O F CASH DEPOSITS AS WELL AS CASH WITHDRAWALS ONLY THY 'PEAK CREDIT OF SUCH A BANK ACCOUNT CAN BE CONSIDERED TO BE THE UNDISCLOSED INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CASH WITHDRAWALS PRECEDING CASH DE POSITS HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED AS SOURCE OF THE SAID SUBSEQUENT C ASH DEPOSITS. THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS. IT W AS ALSO HELD BY THE ITAT KOLKATA 'A' BENCH IN THE CASE OF TANM OY CHATTERJEE VS ITO ITA NO.1434/ K/2009 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 30 /07/2010 AS FOLLOWS: 'WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S MADE CASH DEPOSIT AND ALSO CASH WITHDRAWAL FROM TIME TO TIME FROM THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOUR CE OF DEPOSIT IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT. FURTHER THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD THAT THE SAID CASH WITHDRAWAL HAS BEEN SPENT BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE WE FIND SUBSTANCE IN TH E SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE WITHDRAWAL FROM THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT AND AGAIN DEPOSITED THE SAME AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT UTILIZ E THE WITHDRAWAL AMOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT WAS WITHDRAWN. NO DOUBT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT STATED ANY WHERE THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE AMOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN FROM TIME TO TIME THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED THE BANK STATEMENT AT PAGE 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK. CONSIDERING THE SAID BANK STATEMENT THE EXTRACT OF WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) A T PAGE 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE PEAK OF THE BALANCE IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/ S. 69 OF THE 1. T. ACT. ' ALSO THE HON'BLE ITAT KOLKATA 'C' BENCH IN ITS OR DER DATED 30 04.2010 IN THE CASE OF ASIT BARAN UTTASANEE VS I TO IN ITA NO. 1327/K/2008 HELD AS FOLLOWS: '8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THERE IS NO DISPUT E TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE NEGATIVE CASH BALANCE AS OBSERVED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE GIVE N ON PAGES 3AND 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HOWEVER WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ADDITION OF THE AMOUNT OF NEGATIVE BALANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGGREGATING RS.11 80 150.52 U/S.6 8 OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. CONSIDERING THE FACTS WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IT WILL BE JUSTIFIA BLE TO TAKE THE PEAK OF THE NEGATIVE BALANCE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT.' I.T.A. NO. 1295/KOL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-2012 PAGE 5 OF 7 FURTHER THE HON'BLE ITAT KOLKATA 'C' BENCH HELD I N THE CASE OF ACIT VS. LOKNATH PRASAD GUPTA IN IT (SS) A NO. 185 & 190/KOL/2003 AS UNDER.- 'WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RESPECTIVE BANK ACCOUNTS AND OBSERVED THAT THERE WERE VARIOUS CREDI TS AS WELL AS WITHDRAWALS IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT BEGINNING ON AND FROM 01-01-1990 TO 20-03-2002 LEAVING A CLOSING BALANCE OF RS.8 461/-. THERE IS N O DOUBT THAT THE DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS AN UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER IT IS SEEN THAT EVERY DEPOSIT IS FOLLOWED BY A WITHDRAWAL SUBSEQUENTLY. THE AMOUNT INVESTED AT ONE POINT OF T IME HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN SUBSEQUENTLY AND THERE WAS FURTH ER DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THEREFORE THE PEAK CR EDIT OF RS.7 50 975/- COVERS THE TOTAL DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWAL MADE BY THE ASSESESE IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT. MAKING THE ADDITION OF AGGREGATE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WITHOUT GIVING THE BENEFIT OF WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM TIME TO TIME IS NOT JUSTIFIED THE LD CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY TREATED THE PEAK BALANCE OF RS.7 50 975/- AS AN UNEXPLAINED INVESTME NT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE NATURE OF CREDITS IN TH E SAID BANK ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION OF RS 7 50 975/- IS ONLY CALLED FOR. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS THEREFORE UPHELD. THUS THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THA T ONLY THE PEAK BALANCE CAN BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTME NT. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS COMMON RATIO OF VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL IT IS HELD THAT ONLY T HE COMBINED PEAK CREDIT IN THE APPELLANT'S BANK ACCOUNTS WITH AXIS B ANK AND BANK OF INDIA CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX IF IT CANNOT BE EX PLAINED SATISFACTORILY. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE THE PEAK CASH B ALANCE OF RS.9 79 326/- ON 22.04.2010 IN THE APPELLANT'S BANK ACCOUNT WITH AXIS BANK (WHICH IS ALSO THE CONSOLIDATED PEAK FOR BOTH HIS ACCOUNTS) IS EXPLAINED BY THE OPENING CASH BALANCE OF RS.5 79 326/- BROUGHT FORWARD FROM THE PRECEDING YE AR WHICH CANNOT BE CONSIDERED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND THE CASH GIFT OF RS.4 00 000/ - RECEIVED FROM THE APPELLANT'S MOTHER-IN-LAW. THUS THE COMBI NED PEAK CASH BALANCE HAS BEEN EXPLAINED SATISFACTORILY BY T HE APPELLANT. THE SUBSEQUENT CASH DEPOSITS (OTHER THAN INTEREST C REDITED TO THE ACCOUNT WITH AXIS BANK) ARE EXPLAINED BY THE PRIOR CASH WITHDRAWALS. HENCE ONLY THE TOTAL INTEREST OF RS. 5 606/- CREDITED TO THE AMOUNT WITH AXIS BANK TOTAL INTERE ST OF RS.387/ - CREDITED TO THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH BANK OF INDIA(A/C . NO.7445) AND INTEREST OF RS. 423/- ON DORMANT ACCOUNT NO 148 4 WITH BANK OF INDIA CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX. HENCE ADDITION OF RS.6 416/-(I.E. RS. 5 606/- + RS.387/- + RS. 423/-) IS CONFIRMED AN D THE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS. 41 94 000/- IS DELETED. THE THIRD A ND FOURTH GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DECIDED ACCORDINGLY. I.T.A. NO. 1295/KOL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-2012 PAGE 6 OF 7 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE MAIN CON TENTION RAISED BY THE LD. D.R. IS THAT THE CASE MADE OUT BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF PEAK CREDIT THEORY WAS ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOU T GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE SAME. HE ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE SAID THEORY WAS PUT IN TO SERVIC E BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY RE LYING ON THE SAME WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO VERIFY THE PEAK CREDIT WORKING OF THE ASSESSEE IS IN CLEAR VIOLATIO N OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. HOWEVER AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FROM THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ASSESSEE S SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH HAS BEEN DULY R EPRODUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE PEAK CREDIT THEORY WAS PUT INTO SERVICE BY THE ASSESSEE EVEN BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER BY POINTING OUT THAT THE CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM THE SAME BA NK ACCOUNTS WERE AVAILABLE AND UTILIZED FOR MAKING DEPOSITS ON THE S UBSEQUENT DATES. IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT THE ARGUMENT BASED ON PEAK CREDIT T HEORY WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE EVEN BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE OTHER SUBMISSIONS REGARDING AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS IN THE FORM OF OPEN ING BALANCE AS WELL AS GIFT CLAIMED TO BE RECEIVED FROM HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW IN CASH WERE ALSO SPECIFICALLY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT THERE WAS NO NEW CASE MADE OUT BY THE AS SESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOR THE FIRST TIME AND THERE IS NO VIO LATION OF RULE 46A ON THE PART OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WHILE GIVING RELIE F TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION AS ALLEGED BY THE LD. D.R . EVEN ON MERIT A PERUSAL OF THE COPY OF RELEVANT BANK STATEMENT PLAC ED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT ALL THE WITHDRAWALS AND DEPOSITS FROM THE SAID BANK ACCOUNTS WERE MAINLY MADE IN CASH AND TH EREFORE ONLY PEAK CREDIT APPEARING IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT WAS REQUI RED TO BE CONSIDERED I.T.A. NO. 1295/KOL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-2012 PAGE 7 OF 7 FOR MAKING ADDITION TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE. SUCH PEAK CREDIT IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT WAS RS.9 79 326/- AND SINC E THE SAME WAS SUBSTANTIALLY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF O PENING BALANCE AVAILABLE IN THE RELEVANT BANK ACCOUNT AS WELL AS T HE GIFT OF RS.4 00 000/- RECEIVED IN CASH FROM HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW I FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) GIVING SUBST ANTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. I THEREFORE UPHOLD THE SA ME AND DISMISS THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON SEPTEMBER 28 2016. SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA THE 28 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016 COPIES TO : (1) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-23(4) HOOGHLY AAYAKAR BHAVAN KHADINA MORE HOOGHLY-712 101 (2) SHRI SWARUP CHAND MONDAL B.K. ROY SUPER MARKET P.O. ARAMBAGH DIST. HOOGHLY-712 601 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-6 KOLKA TA; (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCHES KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.