Income Tax Office-II,, Bahraich v. Smt. Pooja Devi Srivastava ,, Bahraich

ITA 476/LKW/2013 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2015 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 47623714 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN CBXPS5972F
Bench Lucknow
Appeal Number ITA 476/LKW/2013
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 30 day(s)
Appellant Income Tax Office-II,, Bahraich
Respondent Smt. Pooja Devi Srivastava ,, Bahraich
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-07-2015
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 31-07-2015
Date Of Final Hearing 30-06-2015
Next Hearing Date 30-06-2015
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 01-07-2013
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.476/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010 2011 ITO - II BAHARAICH VS. SMT. POOJA DEVI SRIVASTAVA PROP. M/S SHRITHI ENTERPRISES KDC ROAD BAHARAICH 271 801. PAN:CBXPS5972F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI P. K. KAPOOR C.A. REVENUE BY SMT. PINKI MAHAWAR SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 30/06/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 3 1 /07/2015 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA A.M. THIS IS A REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A) II LUCKNOW DATED 05.04.2013 FOR A.Y. 2010 2011. 2. GROUND NO. 1 IS AS UNDER: - BECAUSE THE LD CIT (A) II LUCKNOW ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2 99 620/ - MADE U/S 40A (3) OF IT ACT ON THE GROUND THAT PAYMENTS OF RS. 132 000/ - MADE ON 21.03.2010 AND RS. 167 620/ - ON 28.03.2010 FALL ON SUNDAYS AND BANKS WERE CLOSED WHICH WAS ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS P ROVIDED IN RULE 6DD(J) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT THE REQUIREMENT AND NECESSITY OF PAYMENT ON SUNDAYS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD CIT (A) II LUCKNOW BEFORE GIVING RELIEF HAS ALSO NOT EXAMINED THE FACTS WHETHER T HE PAYMENT HAS ACTUALLY MATURED ON THAT PARTICULAR DATE OR NOT REQUIRING IMMEDIATE PAYMENT AS EVERY BILL HAS CERTAIN PERIOD FOR PAYMENT. IF THE HOLIDAY DOES NOT FALL ON LAST DAY OF PERIOD FOR PAYMENT OF THE BILL THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT DESERVE TO GET RELIEF . 2 3. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT (A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE FIND THAT LEARNED CIT (A) H AS ALLOWED RELIEF ONLY IN RESPECT OF TWO PAYMENTS WHICH WERE MADE ON SUNDAYS AND HE HAS CONFIRMED THE BALANCE DISALLOWANCES U/S 40A (3). WE ALSO FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THESE ARE CASH PURCHASES. THEREFORE THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO FIND OUT THE DUE DATE OF THE BILL. THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF THE A.O. THAT THESE TWO DATES ARE NOT ON SUNDAY. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 5. GROUND NO. 2 & 3 ARE AS UNDER: - BECAUSE THE LD CIT (A) II LUCKNOW ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 18 00 000/ - BY ACCEPTING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SAVING BANK ACCOUNT OF HDFC BANK IN WHICH DEPOSITS WERE MADE THROUGH LOAN O BTAINED FROM 98 PERSONS ON PERSONAL GROUND WAS HER PERSONAL ACCOUNT AND NOT A BUSINESS ACCOUNT SO INFORMATION OF ABOVE BANK ACCOUNT AND ENTRIES THEREIN WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS THAT INTEREST EARNED ON DEP OSITS WAS ALSO NOT INCORPORATED IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THE LD CIT (A) II LUCKNOW HAS ALSO NOT EXAMINED THE UNUSUAL PATTERN OF LOAN TAKEN FROM 98 DIFFERENT PERSONS WHO ARE NEITHER RELATIVE NOR FAMILY MEMBERS WHICH CREATES DOUBT OVER THE GENUINENESS OF SO CALLED LOAN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. IN DOING SO THE LD CIT (A) II LUCKNOW HAS ALSO ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 18 00 000/ - WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FINDINGS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD. 6. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT (A). 3 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE FIND THAT LEARNED CIT (A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE AS PER PARA 5 (2) TO 5(6) WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: - 5(2)(I) I HAVE EXAMINED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FINDINGS OF THE AO AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT OBTAINED LOANS ON PERSONAL GROUNDS FOR PURCHASE OF LAND FROM 98 PERSONS. THE LOANS TAKEN IN CASH FROM AGRICULTURISTS WERE DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER 08661000004351 WITH HDFC BANK BAHRAICH. THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT WAS A PERSONAL ACCOUNT AND NOT A BUSINESS ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE ENTRIES T HEREIN WERE NOT REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE AO INVOKED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT FOR MAKING ADDITION OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. AT THE OUTSET I FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BHAICHAND H. GANDHI (1983) 141 ITR 67 (BOM) H ON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RULED THAT BANK PASS BOOKS WERE NOT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS ARE AS UNDER - IN BALADIN ROM V. CIT [1969] 71 ITR 427 IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT THAT IT IS NOW WELL SETTLED THAT THE ONL Y POSSIBLE WAY IN WHICH INCOME FROM AN UNDISCLOSED SOURCE CAN BE ASSESSED OR REASSESSED IS TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS THAT THE PREVIOUS YEAR FOR SUCH AN INCOME WOULD BE THE ORDINARY FINANCIAL YEAR. EVEN UNDER THE PROVISIONS EMBODIED IN SECTION 68 OF THE SAID ACT IT IS ONLY WHEN ANY AMOUNT IS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR THAT THE SECTION WILL APPLY AND THE AMOUNT SO CREDITED MAY BE CHARGED TO TAX AS THE INCOME OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR IF THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPL ANATION OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT SATISFACTORY. AS THE TRIBUNAL HAS POINTED OUT IT IS FAIRLY WELL SETTLED THAT WHEN MONEYS ARE DEPOSITED IN A BANK THE RELATIONSHIP THAT IS CONSTITUTED BETWEEN THE BANKER AND THE CUSTOMER IS ONE OF DEBTOR A ND CREDITOR AND NOT OF TRUSTEE AND BENEFICIARY. APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE THE PASS BOOK SUPPLIED BY THE BANK TO ITS CONSTITUENT IS ONLY A COPY OF THE CONSTITUENT'S ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS MAINTAINED BY THE BANK. IT IS NOT AS IF THE PASS BOOK IS MAINTAINED BY T HE BANK AS THE AGENT OF THE CONSTITUENT NOR CAN IT BE SAID THAT THE PASS BOOK IS MAINTAINED BY 4 THE BANK UNDER THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE CONSTITUENT. IN VIEW OF THIS THE TRIBUNAL WAS WITH RESPECT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE PASS BOOK SUPPLIED BY THE BAN K TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE COULD NOT BE REGARDED AS A BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE; THAT IS A BOOK MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE OR UNDER HIS INSTRUCTIONS. IN OUR VIEW THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN THE CONCLUSIONS AT WHICH IT ARRIVED. 5(2)(II) THE AO IS THEREFORE NOT JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE AO HAS WRONGLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AS THE AMOUNT WAS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT IN ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE NATU RE AND SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT IS THEREFORE TO BE EXAMINED WITH REFERENCE TO SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 69 OF THE ACT ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER WRONG QUOTIN G OF RELEVANT SECTION DOES NOT VITIATE THE ADDITION MADE. 5(3) THE ESSENTIAL FACTS WORTH MENTIONING IS THAT THE APPELLANT IN SUPPORT OF LOANS TAKEN FILED AFFIDAVITS OF ALL THE 98 PERSONS. THE AO INSISTED ON PRODUCTION OF 10 PERSONS AS PER SERIAL NUMBERS 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 AND 95 AS MENTIONED IN PARAGRAPH 4 ON PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE APPELLANT PRODUCED 9 PERSONS OUT OF THE 10 CALLED BY THE AO. SHRI DINESH KUMAR MENTIONED AT SERIAL NUMBER 95 COULD NOT BE PRODUCED. STATEMENT ON OAT H OF 9 PERSONS WAS RECORDED BY THE AO ON 27.12.2012. ALL THE 9 PERSONS CONFIRMED HAVING GIVEN LOANS TO THE APPELLANT AND THE SOURCE WAS EXPLAINED TO BE OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF LOANS AND THE REASONS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE AS UNDER NO EVIDENCE WAS FILED IN SUPPORT OF LOAN EXCEPT AFFIDAVITS THE HDFC BANK ACCOUNT IS NOT INCORPORATED IN BALANCE SHEET DETAILS OF LAND FOR THE PURCHASE OF WHICH LOANS WERE TAKEN WERE NOT FILED 5(4) I HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE NON - INCORPORATION OF THE BANK ACCOUNT IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE BALANCE SHEET PREPARED BY THE APPELLANT WAS RELATED TO BUSINESS AFFAIRS AND THE HDFC BANK ACCOUNT HAVING BEEN HELD AS A PERSONAL ACCO UNT WITH NO BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS WAS NOT INCORPORATED THEREIN. EVEN OTHERWISE THE MATTER WHICH 5 REQUIRES CONSIDERATION IS THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE NEXT ISSUE IS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FILED AFFIDAVITS OF AIL 98 PERS ONS FROM WHOM LOANS WERE TAKEN AND THE AO HAS EXAMINED ONLY 10 OF THEM. ALL THE AFFIDAVITS FILED AS EVIDENCE OF LOANS TAKEN HAVE BEEN REJECTED WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON EVEN WHEN 9 OUT OF 10 PERSONS CALLED BY THE AO APPEARED AND CONFIRMED LOANS IN THE S TATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH. IN THE CASE OF MEHTA PAREKH AND CO. VS CIT 30 ITR 181 (SC) IT WAS LAID DOWN THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT CANNOT BE DISBELIEVED WITHOUT REJECTING THE SAME. THE HON'BLE COURT LAID DOWN THAT THE PERSONS WHO GAVE THE AFFIDAVIT S WERE NOT CROSS - EXAMINED IT WAS NOT OPEN TO THE REVENUE TO CHALLENGE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CASH BOOK ENTRIES OR THE STATEMENTS MADE IN THE AFFIDAVITS. THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT LAYS DOWN 'THAT IF THERE IS NO MATERIAL WHATSOEVER ON RECORD FOR DOU BTING THE VERACITY OF THE STATEMENTS MADE IN THE AFFIDAVITS AND IF THE DEPONENTS HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN SUBJECTED TO CROSS - EXAMINATION FOR BRINGING OUT THE VALIDITY OF THEIR STATEMENTS THEN THE TRIBUNAL WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN DOUBTING THE CORRECTNESS OF TH E STATEMENT MADE BY THE DEPONENTS IN THE AFFIDAVITS.' THUS THE AFFIDAVITS NEED NOT BE ACCEPTED AS RELIABLE WHEN THERE IS ENOUGH MATERIAL ON RECORD TO DOUBT THE VERACITY OF THE TRANSACTION. IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE IS NO MATERIAL WITH THE AO TO DISCARD THE EVIDENCE FILED IN THE FORM OF AFFIDAVITS. ONCE THE AO HAS CALLED ONLY 10 OF THE 98 PERSONS IT IS THEREFORE NOT OPEN TO THE OA TO REJECT THE AFFIDAVITS OF REMAINING 88 PERSONS WITHOUT CROSS EXAMINATION. EVEN IN CASE OF OTHER PERSONS 9 OUT OF 10 PERSONS W HO APPEARED HAVE CONFIRMED THE LOANS. AS REGARDS NON - FILING OF DETAILS OF LAND PURCHASED FOR WHICH LOANS WERE TAKEN 1 FIND THAT THE AO HAS MISDIRECTED HIS FINDINGS. THE ISSUE IS THE VERACITY OF LOANS TAKEN FROM 98 PERSONS AMOUNTING TO RS. 18 00 000/ - . THE UTILIZATION OF THE LOAN TAKEN IS NOT AN ISSUE. 5(5) I FIND FROM MY EXAMINATION THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONFIRMATIONS OF THE CASH CREDITORS IN THE FORM OF AFFIDAVITS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DISPROVED THE INITIAL BURDEN PLACED UPON THE ASSESSEE CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN DISCHARGED AND IF THERE IS ANY DOUBT WITH REGARD TO THE CREDITWORTHINESS THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE CREDITORS OR WOULD HAVE EXAMINED THE CREDITORS DIRECTLY AND IN THE ABSENCE OF TAKING SUCH RECOURSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TAKING AN ADVERSE INFERENCE WITH REGARD TO THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS. 6 A REFERENCE IN THIS CONNECTION MAY BE MADE TO THE DECISION OF HON'BLE THIRD MEMBER ITAT LUCKNOW BENCH IN THE CASE OF VIS HNU JAISWAL VS ITO IN ITA NO. 336 (LKW.) OF 2011 DATED MAY 1 2012 WHEREIN IT WAS LAID DOWN AS UNDER - THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE COME TO ANY CONCLUSION WITHOUT EXAMINING THE CASH CREDITORS. THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE AWARE OF THE SOURCE OF CREDITO RS WHICH WOULD BE WITHIN THE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE CREATORS. MERE DOUBT WITH REGARD TO THE CREDITWORTHINESS SHOULD NOT AUTOMATICALLY REFLECT IN DISBELIEVING THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 WITHOUT SHOWING THAT THE ASSESSEE W OULD HAVE EARNED MORE INCOME FROM ANY SPECIFIC SOURCE IN THE LIGHT OF THE EXPRESSION 'MAY USED IN SECTION 68. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68SHOUJFI BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH SECTION 106 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT. IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE INITIAL BURDEN OF PROVING IDENTITY GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS AND ALSO CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE THREE CREDITORS BY PRODUCING THEIR RESPECTIVE BANK ACCOUNTS. ENTRY IN THE PASS BOOK OF A THIRD PARTY CAN BE TAKEN AS PRI MARY EVIDENCE IN PROOF OF THE FACT THAT LOAN WAS ADVANCED BY THIRD PARTY. THUS THE INITIAL ONUS SHIFTS ONTO THE REVENUE TO PROVE THAT THE CREDITORS LACK CREDITWORTHINESS AND TO COME TO SUCH CONCLUSION THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ASKED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE WHICH IS WITHIN THE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE THIRD PARTY. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT EXAMINE THE PARTIES AND PROCEEDED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT CREDITORS WOULD NOT HAVE SAVED ANY MONEY TO ADVANCE THE LOAN. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN OTHER WORDS IT IS NOT A FIT CASE TO MAKE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68. 5(6) IN VIEW OF MY EXAMINATION ABOVE I FIND THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.18 00 000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF LOANS TAKEN FROM THE 98 PERSONS HAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT PROPER EXAMINATION AND CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED IN VIEW OF DECISION SUPRA. THE ADDITION OF RS.18 00 000/ - IS THEREFORE DELETED GIVING RELIEF TO THE APPELLANT. 7 8. FROM THE ABOVE PARAS FROM THE ORDER OF CIT (A) WE FIN D THAT THE A.O. HAD INTER ALIA THREE OBJECTIONS THAT THE HDFC BANK ACCOUNT IS NOT INCORPORATED IN BALANCE SHEET (2) NO EVIDENCE WAS FILED IN SUPPORT OF LOAN EXCEPT AFFIDAVITS AND (3) DETAILS OF LAND FOR THE PURCHASE OF WHICH LOANS WERE TAKEN WERE NOT FILE D. REGARDING THE FIRST OBJECTION A CLEAR FINDING IS GIVEN BY CIT (A) THAT THE BALANCE SHEET WAS PREPARED FOR BUSINESS AFFAIRS AND THIS BANK ACCOUNT WAS A PERSONAL ACCOUNT. IT IS NOT SHOWN BY THE REVENUE THAT ANY BUSINESS TRANSACTION WAS CARRIED OUT THROUG H THIS BANK ACCOUNT AND HENCE WE FIND NO MERIT IN THIS OBJECTION OF THE A.O. 8.1 REGARDING THE SECOND OBJECTION WE FIND THAT OUT OF 98 PERSONS THE A.O. ASKED 10 TO APPEAR AND 9 APPEARED BEFORE HIM AND CONFIRMED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ABOUT RECEIPT OF LOAN FROM THEM. THERE IS A CATEGORICAL FINDING OF CIT (A) THAT 9 OUT OF 10 PERSONS WHO APPEARED HAVE CONFIRMED THE LOANS AND NO MATERIAL WAS WITH THE A.O. TO DISCARD THE EVIDENCE FILED IN THE FORM OF AFFIDAVITS. REGARDING CREDIT WORTHINESS OF LENDERS IT IS OBSERVED BY CIT (A) THAT IF THE A.O. HAD DOUBTS THE A.O. SHOULD HAVE DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE CREDITORS OR WOULD HAVE EXAMINED THE CREDITORS DIRECTLY AND WITHOUT DOING SO THE A.O. IN TAKING AN ADVERSE INFERENCE. LEARNED CIT (A) HAS FOLLOWE D A THIRD MEMBER TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF VISHNU JAISWAL IN ITA NO. 336/LKW/2011 DATED 01.05.2012. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS WE FIND NO MERIT IN THIS OBJECTION OF THE A.O. ALSO. 8.2 REGARDING THE THIRD OBJECTION WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT THEREIN BECAUSE EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO ESTABLISH THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE LOAN WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT FOR THIS REASON ALONE THE LOAN IS BOGUS AN D ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. 8.3 AS PER ABOVE DISCUSSION WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN ANY OF THE OBJECTIONS OF THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AFFIDAVITS OF ALL 98 PERSONS AND THE A.O. CALLED 10 PERSON OUT OF THEM AND 9 APPEARED AND CONFIRMED. HENCE IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THERE IS 8 INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO. 2 & 3 ARE ALSO REJECTED. 9. GROUND NO. 4 IS AS UNDER: - THE LD CIT (A) II LUCKNOW ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 80 000/ - OUT OF RS. 155 955/ - MADE U/S 69B OF IT ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO MAKE ANY EXPLANATION FOR EXCESS AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES WHICH WAS NOT SHOWN IN THE BAL ANCE SHEET BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 10. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT (A). 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUT HORITIES. WE FIND THAT LEARNED CIT (A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE ON THIS BASIS THAT THIS DIFFERENCE IS WITH REGARD TO PAYMENT OF STAMP PAPER PURCHASED IN CASH AND IT WAS EXPLAINED BEFORE CIT (A) THAT THIS PAYMENT WAS MADE OUT OF CASH AVAILABLE IN PERSONAL CA PACITY. LEARNED CIT (A) HELD THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IT IS REASONABLE TO ACCEPT THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE HAVING SOME CASH AS PERSONAL SAVINGS AND HE ACCEPTED THIS CLAIM TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 80 000/ - . IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE AMOUNT OF PERSONAL CASH ACCEPTED BY CIT (A) IS NOT EXCESSIVE AND HENCE WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO. 4 IS ALSO REJECTED. 12. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOU NCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 3 1 /07/2015 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R. I.T.A.T. LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR