Shri Mukesh Kumar, Jagadhari v. ITO-Ward-2, Yamuna Nagar

ITA 40/CHANDI/2020 | 2014-2015
Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2021 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 4021514 RSA 2020
Assessee PAN AGDPK9371P
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 40/CHANDI/2020
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 22 day(s)
Appellant Shri Mukesh Kumar, Jagadhari
Respondent ITO-Ward-2, Yamuna Nagar
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-08-2021
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 31-08-2021
Date Of Final Hearing 06-05-2021
Next Hearing Date 06-05-2021
Last Hearing Date 12-11-2020
First Hearing Date 23-02-2021
Assessment Year 2014-2015
Appeal Filed On 09-01-2020
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI VICE PRESIDENT & SHRIR.L NEGI JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO.40/CHD/2020 / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2014-15 SH. MUKESH KUMAR C/O RAJIV GOEL & ASSOCIATES 179 BANK ROAD AMBALA CANTT. THE ITO WARD-2 YAMUNANAGAR ./PAN NO. AGDPK9371P / APPELLANT /RESPONDENT HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING /ASSESSEE BY : SH. ROHIT GOEL CA / REVENUE BY : SH. ASHOK KHANNA ADDL. CIT $ /DATE OF HEARING : 31.08.2021 $ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.08.2021 / ORDER PER R.L. NEGI JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 30.10.2019 PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS)-4 LUDHIANA [FOR SHORT THE CIT(A)] FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2014-15 WHEREBY THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 [FOR SHORT THE ACT]. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FI LED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION DECLARING TOTAL ITA NO.40-CHD-2020 SH. MUKESH KUMAR JAGADHARI 2 INCOME OF RS.2 89 230/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 92 093/-. INITIALLY THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE OF VERIFYING THE SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE CAPITAL A CCOUNT DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR 2013-14 HOWEVER LATER ON THE SAME WAS CONVERTED INTO COMPLETE SCRUTINY. ACCORDINGLY AO I SSUED NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE THEREOF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS AND FILED THE DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE AO. THE AO AFTE R HEARING THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DOCUM ENTS AND DETAILS ON RECORD PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1 02 50 570/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOM E OF RS. 92 093/- INTER ALIA MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 80 55 462/- I.E. BROUGHT F ORWARD OPENING BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2013 AS UNEXPLAINED INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND RS. 6 94 290/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE ACT. IN THE FIRST APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF OPENING CAPITAL BALANCE U /S 68 OF THE ACT HOWEVER RESTRICTED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEX PLAINED INVESTMENT TO RS.4 20 519/- STILL AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE HAS FIL ED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER P ASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1.1 THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTIONS OF THE AO IN ASSESSING THE OPENING CAPITAL ITA NO.40-CHD-2020 SH. MUKESH KUMAR JAGADHARI 3 BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2013 AMOUNTING RS. 80 55 462/- AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME U/S 68. (TAX EFFECT = RS.24 89 140/-) 1.2 THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE PROTECTIVE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF OPENING CAPITAL BALANCE AMOUNTING RS. 80 55 462/- O N SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IGNORING THAT THE SAME HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDED TO INCOME OF ASSESSEE OF REARLIERYEARS UPON RE-ASSESSMENT U/S 14 8. (TAX EFFECT-SAME AS GR.1) 1.3 THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE PROTECTIVE ADDITIONS ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS WITHOUT PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSE SSEE AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTIONS OF THE AO IN ASSESSING THE R EPAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON HOUSING LOAN AMOUNTING RS .4 20 519/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 IGNORING THE EXPLANAT IONS OF SOURCES OF PAYMENTS FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE. (TAX EFFECT = RS. 1 29 940/-) 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ALTER A MEND OR TO SUBSTITUTE THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFOR E OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF CASE. 4. VIDE GROUND NO 1.1 TO1.3 THE APPELLANT/ASSESSE E HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDI TION OF OPENING CAPITAL BALANCE AMOUNTING TO RS. 80 55 462/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PLYING VEHICLES ON HIRE AND TRADING IN OIL DECLARED INCOME FROM TRANSPORT VEHI CLE ON HIRE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AE OF THE ACT ON PRESUMPTIV E BASIS. DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 COMBINED BALANCE SHEET OF BOTH THE BUSINESSES WAS SUBMITTED. AS PER THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT THE OPEN ING CAPITAL AS ON ITA NO.40-CHD-2020 SH. MUKESH KUMAR JAGADHARI 4 1.4.2013 WAS RS. 1 23 12 128/-AND CLOSING CAPITAL W AS RS. 1 14 86 802/- DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE FURN ISHED COMPLETE MOVEMENT OF CAPITAL ACCOUNT FROM 01.04.2005. THE AO ACCEPTED THE OPENING BALANCE OF CAPITAL AT RS. 42 56 666/- HOWEV ER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 80 55 462/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDE R SECTION 68 OF THE ACT ON PROTECTIVE BASIS HOLDING THAT SUBSTANTIVE AD DITIONS WILL BE MADE AFTER REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT FOR EARLIER YEARS UND ER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INIT IATED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 TO 2013-14 AND ADDITIONS O F RS. 1 42 92 186/- RS. 93 37 171/- RS. 36 61 237/- RS. 68 230/- AND RS. 7 25 548/-WERE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 2011-12 2012 -13 AND 2013-14 RESPECTIVELY EITHER ON ACCOUNT OF OPENING CAPITAL O R OUT OF CAPITAL ADDITION OR AS PER DECLARATION BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE TH E TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 1 42 92 186/- HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE BY THE AO A FTER REASSESSMENT FOR THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT YEARS ON SUBSTANTIVE B ASIS AGAINST THE OPENING CAPITAL BALANCE OF RS.80 55 462/- THE LD. CIT (A) HAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT IN THE AS SESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER ARGUED THAT AS PER THE SETTLED LAW THE AMOUNT OF OPENING BALANCE OF CAPITAL CARRIED FO RWARD FROM EARLIER YEARS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS CREDIT DURING THE CUR RENT YEAR AND THE SAME CAN ONLY BE ASSESSED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN ITA NO.40-CHD-2020 SH. MUKESH KUMAR JAGADHARI 5 CREDITED. TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CONTENTION THE LD. C OUNSEL RELIED ON THE THE FOLLOWING CASES. A. CIT VERSUS USHA STUD AGRICULTURAL FARM LTD. 301 ITR 384 (DELHI) B. CIT VERSUS J. J. DEVELOPMENT (P) LTD. ITA519/2008 ( CALCUTTA) C. CIT VERSUS PARMESHWAR BOHRA 301 ITR 404 (RAJASTHAN) D. NIRMAL RONNIE VERSUS DCIT POLICY ID NO. 1075/CHD. / 2013 (CHANDIGARH TRIBUNAL) 6. IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS AND THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE TRIBUNA L IN THE AFORESAID CASES THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE A FORESAID CASES THEREFORE LIABLE TO BE SET-ASIDE. 7. ON THE OTHER AND THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTA TIVE (DR) SUPPORTING THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) SUBMITTED THA T SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN AND SUBSTANTIATE THE OPENING CAPITAL BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2013 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED TH E ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTI ES AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CO NFIRMED THE ADDITION HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TAKEN THE CORRECT FIGURES OF PROFIT ITA NO.40-CHD-2020 SH. MUKESH KUMAR JAGADHARI 6 EARNED DURING THE YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL I N ITS RETURN OF INCOME ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN OPENING CAPITAL OF RS. 1 23 12 128/- AS ON 1.4.2013. THE AO AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTE D THE OPENING BALANCE OF RS. 42 56 666/- HOWEVER MADE ADDITION O F THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 80 55 462/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. FURTHER THE AO RE-ASSESSED THE INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 AND 2013 -14 AND MADE ADDITIONS OF RS. 93 37 171/- RS.36 61 237/- RS. 5 68 230/- AND RS. 7 25 548 RESPECTIVELY EITHER ON ACCOUNT OF OPENING CAPITAL OR CAPITAL ADDITIONS DURING THE RELEVANT YEARS OR AS PER THE SUO MOTU DECLARATION BY THE ASSESSEE. THE COPIES OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS P ASSED U/S 144/147 OR U/S 143/147 OF ACT FOR THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT YEA RS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGES 70 TO78 54 TO 62 43 TO 46 AND 28 TO 31 RESPECTIVELY. WE FURTHER NOTICE THAT IN THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2013-14 ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN OPENING BALANCE OF RS. 79 02.054 AS ON 01.04.2012 AND CLOSING BALANCE OF RS. 1 23 12 128.32/- AS ON 3 1.03.2013. THE AO PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.12.2018 U/S 14 3(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AFTER MAKING ADDITION OF RS . 7 25 548/- ON THE BASIS OF DECLARATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RE TURN OF INCOME FILED ON 24.12.2018. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE SAID CLOSING BALANCE RS. 1 23 12 128.32/- AS OPENING BALANCE IN THE ASSESSME NT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE FIND ME RIT IN THE ITA NO.40-CHD-2020 SH. MUKESH KUMAR JAGADHARI 7 CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT SINCE THE AO HAS ALREADY MADE ADDITION OF RS. 1 42 92 186/- TO THE INCOME OF THE EARLIER YEARS AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF OPENING BALANCE OF RS. 80 55 462/- THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF TH E SAID AMOUNT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON SUBSTANT IVE BASIS. 9. FURTHER THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE LD. COUNS EL IS THAT AS PER THE SETTLED LAW THE AMOUNT OF OPENING BALANCE CARRIED F ORWARD FROM EARLIER YEAR CANNOT BE TREATED AS CREDIT DURING THE CURRENT YEAR AND CANNOT BE ASSESSED IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN THE PRESENT CASE SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE AMOUNT OF CLOSING BALANC E AS ON 31.03.2013 AS THE OPENING BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2013 I.E. IN T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTIO N OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE SAID AMOUNT CANNOT BE TREATED AS FRESH CRE DIT IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR AS THE SAID ENTRY DID NOT PERTAIN TO THE YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 10. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. USHA STUD AGRICULTURAL FARMS LTD . (SUPRA) THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS UPHELD THE FINDING S OF THE TRIBUNAL HOLDING THAT WHERE THE CREDIT BALANCE APPEARING IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THE YEAR RELEVANT TO T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE AO CANNOT MAKE ADDITION OF THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. IN THE SAID CAS E AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN AN ADVANCE OF RS. 15 LACS. THE A SSESSEE CONTENDED ITA NO.40-CHD-2020 SH. MUKESH KUMAR JAGADHARI 8 THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED TOWARDS ADVANCE BREEDI NG CHARGES. AO REJECTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE MADE ADDI TION OF THE SAID AMOUNT U/S 68 OF THE ACT FOR THE REASON THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS FAILED TO FILE CONFIRMATION FROM THE CONCERNED PERSON. IN THE FIRST APPEAL THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. IN THE FURTHER APPEAL THE TRIBUNAL AFFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A). THE REVENUE CHALLENGED TH E ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND CONFIRMED T HE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL HOLDING AS UNDER: - 8. HERE THE CIT(A) HAS DECLARED THE ADDITION OF RS . 15 LACS MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT THIS CREDIT BALANCE OF RS. 15 LACS IS BEING REFLECTED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE A SSESSEE OVER THE PAST FOUR TO FIVE YEARS OR SO AND HENCE TH IS WAS NOT A FRESH CREDIT ENTRY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THESE CREDIT ENTRIES WERE ALREADY MADE AND ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1995-96 A ND 1997-98 WHICH WERE INTRODUCED IN THE FORM OF ADVANC E AGAINST BREEDING STALLIONS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AN D THUS THESE CREDITS DID NOT RELATE TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR BEING CONSIDERED UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. SINCE IT IS A FINDING OF FACT RECORDED BY THE CIT(A) THAT THIS CREDIT BALANCE APPEARING IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ASSES SING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE IMPUGNED AD DITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND AS SUCH NO FAULT CA N BE FOUND WITH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH HAS ENDO RSED THE DECISION OF CIT(A). ITA NO.40-CHD-2020 SH. MUKESH KUMAR JAGADHARI 9 11. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PARMESHWAR BOHRA (SUPRA) THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT UNEXPLAINED INVE STMENT/CASH APPEARING IN ACCOUNTS ON THE FIRST DAY OF PREVIOUS YEAR WAS NOT TAXABLE IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR HOLDING THAT A CARR IED FORWARD AMOUNT OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR DOES NOT BECOME AN INVESTMENT OR CASH CREDIT GENERATED DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR. 12. FURTHER IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. J.J. DEVELOPERS (P) LTD) (SUPRA) THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HAS AFFIRMED THE FINDIN GS OF THE TRIBUNAL DELETING THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT HOLDI NG THAT THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IN QUESTION WAS NOT INTRODUCED DU RING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. THE HONBLE COURT UPHELD THE FINDING S OF THE TRIBUNAL HOLDING IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT DURI NG THE PERIOD BETWEEN APRIL 1 2002 AND MARCH 31 2003 I.E. DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR ANY SUM WAS CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE AS SESSEE. 13. UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT THE AO HAS POWER T O MAKE ADDITION OF ANY SUM FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF T HE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR IF THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO EXPLAIN ABOU T THE NATURE AND SOURCE THEREOF OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFACTORY IN THE OPINION OF THE AO. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF OPENING CAPITAL BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2013. FURTHER THE AO HAS ALREA DY REOPENED THE ITA NO.40-CHD-2020 SH. MUKESH KUMAR JAGADHARI 10 RETURNS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS INCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AND MADE ADDITIONS. UNDER T HESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION IGNORING THAT THE CREDIT ENTRY IN QUESTION DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THE YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . HENCE IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE RAT IO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS DISCUSSED ABOVE WE HOLD THAT T HE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND CONTRARY TO THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASES DISCUSSED ABOVE . WE THEREFORE ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 14. VIDE GROUND NO 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED T HE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.4 20 51 9/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 6 94 290/- MADE BY THE AO AS UNEXPL AINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF PAYMENTS MADE TOWARDS INSTALLMENTS OF HOM E LOAN. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS P AID RS. 4 20 519/- IN NINE INSTALLMENTS FROM ITS ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH HDFC AND THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THESE PAYMENTS . THE LD. COUNSEL INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT S TATEMENT WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGES 81TO 86 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND CO PY LEDGER A/C OF M/S PREM OIL STORE TO DEMONSTRATE THE SOURCE OF THE SAI D PAYMENTS. THE LD. ITA NO.40-CHD-2020 SH. MUKESH KUMAR JAGADHARI 11 COUNSEL FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT NONE OF THE PAYMEN TS FROM THE SAID FIRM WAS RECEIVED IN CASE. THE LD. COUNSEL ACCORDI NGLY SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF INV ESTMENT IN QUESTION ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THE LD. CIT(A) H AS WRONGLY SUSTAINED THE ADDITION RS. 4 20 519/- HOLDING THE S AME AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE ACT. 15. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR SUPPORTING THE OR DER PASSED BY THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE COPY OF ACCO UNT OF M/S PREM OIL STORE THE PAYMENTS TOWARDS TANKER RENT HAVE BEEN MADE IN CASH HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ITS CASH ACCOUN T TO SHOW AVAILABILITY OF THE FUNDS. HENCE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CON FIRMED THE ADDITION IN QUESTION. 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PART IES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNS EL THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE BREAKUP OF PAYMENT AMOUNTING TO RS. 4 20 519/- IN THE SAID DETAIL THE ASSESSEE HAS MENTIONED THE CHEQUE NUMBERS VIDE WHICH PAYMENTS WERE RECEIVED FROM M/S PREM OIL STORE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE COPY OF STATEMENT OF BANK ACCOUNT WHI CH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGES 81 TO 86 OF THE PAPER BOOK. AS PER THE SAID S TATEMENT OF ACCOUNT THE CHEQUES RECEIVED FROM M/S PREM OIL STORE FROM T IME TO TIME WERE DEPOSITED IN ASSESSEES ACCOUNT AND THEREAFTER THE AMOUNTS OF EMI WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE LOAN ACCOUNT THROUGH CHEQUES. SO THE ASSESSEE HAS ITA NO.40-CHD-2020 SH. MUKESH KUMAR JAGADHARI 12 PROVED THE SOURCE OF AMOUNT PAID TOWARDS REPAYMENT OF HOME LOAN. HOWEVER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS. 4 20 519/- INTER ALIA ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPY OF ACCOUNT OF M/S PREM OIL STORE AS PER WHICH THE SAID FIRM HAS P AID THE TANKER RENT IN CASH. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE O F THE SAID AMOUNT ON THE BASIS OF ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WE FIND M ERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINE D THE SAID ADDITION IGNORING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE I.E. ENTRIES IN THE STATEMENT OF BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND THERE I S NO REFERENCE OF THE STATEMENT OF BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE AS SESSMENT ORDER. HENCE WE SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND SEND THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO DELETE THE ADD ITION AFTER VERIFICATION OF ENTRIES IN THE STATEMENT OF BANK AC COUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTL Y ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 31 ST AUG 2021 SD/- SD/- (N.K. SAINI) (R.L. NEGI) / VICE PRESIDENT / JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 31 .08.2021 .. + - / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ITA NO.40-CHD-2020 SH. MUKESH KUMAR JAGADHARI 13 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. . / CIT 4. . ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. 1 $1 3 / DR ITAT CHANDIGARH 6. / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR