HEMA V. SANGHVI, MUMBAI v. ITO WD 15(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 6737/MUM/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 12-07-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 673719914 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AVQPS3185H
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 6737/MUM/2010
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 20 day(s)
Appellant HEMA V. SANGHVI, MUMBAI
Respondent ITO WD 15(2)(2), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 12-07-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted H
Tribunal Order Date 12-07-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 04-07-2013
Next Hearing Date 04-07-2013
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 22-09-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH MUMBAI .. ! '#$ % % % % &'. '.(.. %) * '#$ '+ BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP AM AND DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN JM './ I.T.A. NO. 6737/MUM/2010 ( *) - %.- *) - %.- *) - %.- *) - %.- / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) HEMA V. SANGHVI 9/B SHRINIKETAN SOCIETY NORTH AVENUE ROAD SANTACRUZ (W) MUMBAI 400 054. ) ) ) ) / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 15 (2)(2) MUMBAI 400 020. $/ ! './ PAN : AVQPS 3185 H ( /0 / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( 12/0 / RESPONDENT ) /0 3 4 ' / APPELLANT BY : SHRI KIRAN MEHTA 12/0 3 4 ' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AJAY ')% 3 ! / // / DATE OF HEARING : 04-07-2013 56. 3 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12-07-2013 # 7 / O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP A.M . : .. ! '#$ THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) 26 MUMBAI DTD. 02-08-2010 AND THE SOLITAR Y ISSUE ARISING OUT OF THE SAME RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 10 72 000/- MAD E BY THE A.O. AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAIN ED CASH DEPOSITS FOUND TO BE MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA 6737/MUM/2010 2 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUA L. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION SHE WAS A NON-RESIDENT IN INDI A AND RECEIVED RENTAL INCOME OF RS. 5 90 400/- FROM THE PROPERTY OWNED BY HER. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 31 -7-2006 THE SAID INCOME WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AT RS. 3 45 464/- AFTER CLAIMING THE PERMISSIBLE DEDUCTION S. AS PER THE ANNUAL INFORMATION REPOR (AIR) THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO HAVE DEPOSITED CASH OF RS. 10 72 000/- IN HER SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT WITH CENTUR IAN BANK OF PUNJAB LTD. BANDRA BRANCH MUMBAI. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON BY THE A.O. TO EXPLAIN THE SAID CASH DEPOSITS. IN REPLY IT WAS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A NON-RESIDENT SETTLED IN USA AND IS REMITTING MONEY EVERY MONTH T O HER FATHER-IN-LAW AND MOTHER-IN-LAW FOR THEIR MONTHLY HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES AND MEDICAL EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER COULD NOT FILE ANY DOCUMENTA RY EVIDENCE OF SUCH FOREIGN REMITTANCES SEND BACK TO HER TO THE IN LAWS . THE A.O. THEREFORE TREATED THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 10 72 000/- FOUND TO BE MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED TH E SAID AMOUNT TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT COMP LETED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 VIDE AN ORDER DATED 31-3-2006. 3. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND VARIOUS CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED ON HER BEHALF BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSITS FOUND TO BE MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE SAID CONTENTIONS AS DISCUSSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 4 OF HIS IMPUGN ED ORDER WERE AS UNDER:- 4. IN APPEAL IT IS CONTENDED THAT BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT WAS BEING OPERATED BY HER FATHER-IN-LAW SHRI C.N. SANGH AVI WHO IS OF 73 YEARS OLD AND SUFFERING FROM CHRONIC HEART PROBLEMS . ACCORDING TO THE AR HE HAD NO INCOME OF HIS OWN HOWEVER SHRI C.N. SANGHAVI FATHER- IN-LAW OF THE APPELLANT FACED SEVERAL PRESSURE FROM BANKS FROM WHERE HE AND BY HIS COMPANIES HAD BORROWED MONIES BUT WER E IN DEFAULT. SINCE BOTH THE SONS OF SHRI C.N. SANGHAVI WERE SETT LED IN USA AND USED ITA 6737/MUM/2010 3 TO SENT MONEY TO GIVE FUNDS TO THE FATHER FOR HIS L IVING EXPENSES AND MEETING OUT THE DUES OF THE BANK ACCORDING TO THE AR MONIES WERE NOT REMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE BANK BECAUSE OF THE REASON THAT THERE WAS AN APPREHENSION THAT THIS BANK ACCOUNT COULD BE ATTACH ED IN TIME. DUE TO THAT HIS SONS AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS USED TO GIVE MONEY AT THE TIME OF THEIR VISIT IN INDIA. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR T HESE FAMILY MEMBERS USED TRAVELLERS CHEQUE AND CREDIT CARDS WHICH WERE ENCASHED IN INDIA AND GIVEN TO SHRI C.N. SANGHAVI IN INDIAN RUPEES. I N SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED E-MAIL CONFIRMATIO N FROM ONE OF THE SON SHRI VIPUL SANGHAVI ALSO HUSBAND OF THE APPELL ANT. THEREFORE IT IS PLEADED THAT SUCH ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS ON WRO NG FOOTING AS THERE IS NO UNDISCLOSED SOURCES OF INCOME. FURTHER ACCOR DING TO THE AR MERELY BECAUSE OF SOME INVESTMENTS OR DEPOSITS ARE IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A WOULD NOT BE A TTRACTED ONCE IT IS CLEAR THAT SUCH INVESTMENTS OR DEPOSITS OR MONIES PRIMA FACIE DO NOT BELONG TO THE APPELLANT. THIS VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE FAMOUS DECISION OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. P.K. NOORJEHAN (123 ITR 3). IN VIEW OF THIS DECISION IT IS SUBMITT ED THAT SECTION 69A CAN HAVE NO APPLICATION TO THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT AS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE MONIES WERE NEITHER DEPOSITED BY HER NOR DID THE MO NIES BELONG TO HER. OUT OF ABUNDANT CAUTION AS ARGUED IT IS SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 68 CAN HAVE NO APPLICATION AS THE MONIES WERE FOUND DEPOSI TED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND WERE RECORDED IN THE PASS BOOK MAINTAIN ED BY THE BANK. AS HELD IN SEVERAL CASES THE BANK PASS CANNOT BE RE GARDED AS THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT. THUS SINCE AMOUNTS W ERE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT SECTION 68 CAN NO APPLI CATION. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT T HE SOURCE OF THE CASH IN REFERENCE IS INDEED EXPLAINED AS CASH HANDED OVE R TO SHRI C.N. SANGHAVI AFORESAID. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE CONFIRMATI ON OF VIPUL SANGHAVI THAT DURING HIS VISIT TO INDIA IN 2004-05 AND 2005- 06 HE HAD ENCASHED IN INDIA US $ OF 55 000 AND THE PROCEEDS THEREOF IN INDIAN RUPEES WERE GIVEN TO SHRI C.N. SANGHAVI. IT MAY BE APPRECIATED THAT THE PROCEEDS OF US $ 55 000 WOULD BE MORE THAN SUFFICIENT TO COVER THE CASH DEPOSITS AFORESAID MADE FROM TIME TO TIME BY SHRI C.N. SANGH AVI. IT MAY ALSO BE SEEN THAT SHRI SANGHAVI HAD NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCO ME THE CASH IN REFERENCE CAME TO BE DEPOSITED FROM THE BALANCE THA T HE WOULD HAVE HAD OUT OF CASH RECEIVED BY HIM AS AFORESAID AND A MAJOR PART OF THE AMOUNT WAS UTILIZED TO MAKE PAYMENT TO THE BANK THR OUGH HIS COMPANY. THUS IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE CASH DEPOSI TS IN REFERENCE ARE INDEED EXPLAINED AND HENCE ON MERITS ALSO THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 69A/68 CAN HAVE NO APPLICATION. 4.2 FURTHER IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT E-MAIL CONFI RMATION IS AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SAME MAY BE ADMITTED IN TERMS O F RULE 46A AS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS APPELLA NT WAS NOT ASKED TO PRODUCE SUCH EXPLANATION AND THIS NEW EVIDENCE I S SUBMITTED AND ARGUED THAT ADDITION SO MADE EITHER U/S 69A OR U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 MAY BE DELETED. ITA 6737/MUM/2010 4 4. AFTER CONSIDERING AND DISCUSSING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN PARA 4 & 4.2 THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND NO M ERIT IN THE SAME AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 10 72 000/- MADE BY T HE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS FOUND TO BE MADE IN THE B ANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARA 5 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER:- 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR CAREFULLY. IT TRANSPIRES FROM THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR THAT THERE IS NO VALID AND ACCEPTABLE EXPLANATION OF VARIOUS DEPOSITS MADE IN CASH IN BAN K ACCOUNT NO. SN 40014375. THE COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT SUBMITTED BY LD. AR SHOWS THE OCCUPATION OF THE APPELLANT AS HOUSE-WIFE AND THE RE IS NO CO- RELATIONSHIP OF HER SOURCES OF INCOME WITH REGARD T O CORRESPONDING DEPOSITS MADE IN CASH ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS THROUGHO UT THE YEAR. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ALSO APP ELLANT/AR HAS FAILED TO CO-RELATE WITH ANY GENUINE SOURCES OF INC OME DULY DISCLOSED TO THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT FROM THE KNOWN SOURCES T HEREFORE THE STORY ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR THAT SON OR THEIR FAMI LY MEMBERS USED TO SEND MONEY TO SHRI C.N. SANGHAVI FOR MEETING OUT TH E EXPENDITURE FOR HIS LIVELIHOOD AND FOR REPAYMENT OF BORROWED MONIES FROM THE BANK IS OUT OF CONTEXT. THIS IS APPARENTLY A COOKED UP STOR Y CANNOT BE BELIEVED AS TRUE BECAUSE OF THE OBVIOUS REASON THAT IF ANY M ONEY WAS TO BE REMITTED IT COULD HAVE DEFINITELY BEEN REMITTED TH ROUGH RECOGNIZED CHANNEL LIKE TELEGRAPHIC TRANSFER OR THROUGH TRANSF ER OF MONEY FROM NRIS ACCOUNT. FURTHER ONE IMPORTANT POINT IS WORT HWHILE TO MENTION THAT IF ANY REMITTANCE WAS THERE THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN PROPER AND RELIABLE EVIDENCE BUT THIS IS NOT THERE IN THIS CAS E AND APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE IT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER A S WELL AS DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDING. IT IS FURTHER WORTHWHILE TO MENTION THAT IF MONEY WAS TO BE SENT BY THE SONS AND RELATED PERSONS IT COULD HAVE BEEN SENT IN THE SEPARATE ACCOUNT OF SHRI C.N. SANGHAVI AND N OT IN THE ACCOUNT OF HEMA SANGHAVI THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE THE ARGUME NTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR ARE UNTENABLE. FURTHER THE SELF CREATED EVIDENCE LIKE CONFIRMATION OF SHRI VIPUL SANGHAVI IS OF NO AVAIL AS THIS IS NOT A RELIABLE EVIDENCE OF ANY SORT AND ALSO SUCH AFTER T HOUGHT CREATION OF E- MAIL CONFIRMATION DOES NOT REVEAL ANY EVIDENCE OR C O-RELATIONSHIP OF FOREIGN REMITTANCE WITH VARIOUS DEPOSITS OF CASH MO NEY WHICH IS AS UNDER:- DATE AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT 06.04.2005 150 000 11.04.2005 60 000 15.04.2005 70 000 09.04.2005 50 000 14.05.2005 50 000 ITA 6737/MUM/2010 5 26.05.2005 25 000 11.06.2005 1 000 16.06.2005 50 000 18.06.2005 25 000 25.06.2005 30 000 27.06.2005 25 000 30.06.2005 15 000 05.08.2005 22 000 16.08.2005 25 000 23.08.2005 25 000 27.08.2005 25 000 26.09.2005 100 000 26.09.2005 50 000 28.09.2005 50 000 03.10.2005 35 000 05.10.2005 50 000 19.10.2005 50 000 13.01.2006 25 000 16.01.2006 25 000 THEREFORE EVEN SUCH E-MAIL CONFIRMATION IS TAKEN I N RECORD THE FAILURE OF THE APPELLANT IS ESTABLISHED AS CONFIRMATION DOE S NOT PROVE THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN INDIA WITH ANY REFERABLE EVID ENCE. IT IS VERY EVIDENT THAT SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IS NOT EXPLAINABLE BY THE AP PELLANT OR BY SHRI C.N. SANGHAVI THEREFORE THE FINDING OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IS WORTH APPROVAL. APPELLANT HAS GROSSLY FAILED TO EXPLAIN T HE GENUINENESS OF THE SOURCES OF DEPOSITS AND OBVIOUSLY SUCH DEPOSITS ARE ALSO NOT CO- RELATABLE WITH THE RENTAL INCOME OF RS.5 90 400/-. THEREFORE THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE LD. AR OF CIT VS. SMT. P.K. NOORJ EHAN 123 ITR 3 (KER) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AS REGA RDS CLAIM OF ENCASHING OF US $55 000 AND GIVEN TO SHRI C.N. SANGHAVI IT I S WORTHWHILE TO MENTION THAT SUCH CLAIM IS APPARENTLY A FALSE CLAIM . THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD WHICH CAN CO-RELATE ANY SUCH ENC ASHING OF US DOLLAR AND GIVING IT TO SHRI C.N. SANGHAVI WHICH M AY JUSTIFY SUCH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. FURTH ER WHEN SHRI VIPUL SANGHAVI CAME TO INDIA IN 2004-05 OR IN 2005-06 HE WOULD HAVE SPENT SUCH MONEY FOR HIS DAY-TO-DAY REQUIREMENTS ON VARIO US EXPENDITURE LIKE FOOD TRANSPORTATION LOCAL VISITS AND VARIOUS OTHER EXPENDITURE RELATED WITH NRIS VISIT. BESIDES IT IS ALSO RELEV ANT TO MENTION THAT IF SUCH MONEY WAS GIVEN TO SHRI C.N. SANGHAVI IT WOUL D HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN HIS OWN BANK ACCOUNT OR IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SPENT BY HIM ONLY. FURTHER IT SEEMS NECESSARY TO MENTION THAT T HERE WAS A MISCELLANEOUS DEPOSIT RIGHT FROM 06.04.2005 TO 16.0 1.2006 WHICH CANNOT BE CO-RELATED WITH ANY ENCASHING OF US DOLLA R OF F.Y. 2004-05. NOT ONLY THAT APPELLANT HAS ALSO FAILED TO ESTABLIS H AS TO HOW ENCASHMENT OF US DOLLAR IN F.Y. 2004-05 WAS REMAINE D UNUTILIZED AND WAS DEPOSITED IN F.Y. 2005-06. THEREFORE SUCH COOK ED-UP-STORY OF ITA 6737/MUM/2010 6 DEPOSIT OF ENCASHED US DOLLAR IS APPARENTLY A FALSE -ONE. IT IS ALSO WORTHWHILE TO MENTION THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE LD. AR THAT MONE Y WAS BEING REMITTED BY THE APPELLANT IN EVERY MONTH TO HER FAT HER-IN-LAW AND MOTHER-IN-LAW WHEREAS IN APPELLATE PROCEEDING NEW STORY_HAS BEEN ADDUCED THAT SONS OF SHRI C.N. SANGHAVI HAVE REMITT ED THE MONEY. AS SUCH IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT APPELLANT HAS GOT DEPOSITED UNEXPLAINED CASH IN HER BANK ACCOUNT REMAINED TO BE TAXED. IT IS FURTHER RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT IT IS THE APPELLAN T WHO HAS TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF CASH CREDITS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT VIDE A GOVINDARAJULU MUDALIAR VS. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (S C) SREELEKHA BANERJEE VS. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 117 (SC) SETH KALEKHAN MI HANIF VS. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 669 673 674 (MP). MERELY ES TABLISHING THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR IS NOT ENOUGH VIDE SHANKAR INDUSTRIES VS. CIT (1978) 114 ITR 689 (CAL); C. KANT & CO. VS. CIT (19 80) 126 ITR 63 (CAL); PRAKASH TEXTILE AGENCY VS. CIT (1980) 121 ITR 890 (CAL); ORIENTAL WIRE INDUSTRIES P. LTD. VS. CIT. (1981)131 ITR 688 (CAL) ; CIT VS. UNITED COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL CO. (P) LTD. (1991) 187 ITR 596 599 (CAL); M.A. UNNEERI KUTTY VS. CIT(1992) 198 ITR 147 150 ( KER) SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION DISMISSED BY THE SUPREME COURT: (1993) 201 ITR (ST.) 23 (SC); CIT VS. PRECISION FINANCE PVT. LTD. (1994) 208 I1R 465 470 (CAL). MERE FILING OF CONFIRMATORY LETTERS DOES NOT DISCHARGE T HE ONUS THAT LIES ON THE ASSESSEE VIDE BHARATI P. LTD. VS. CIT (1978) 1 11 ITR 951 (CAL); CIT VS. W.J. WALKER & CO. (1979) 117 ITR 690 694 (CAL) ; CIT VS. UNITED COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIES CO. (P) LTD. (1991) 187 ITR 596 599 (CAL). FURTHER MERE FURNISHING OF THE PARTICULARS IS NOT ENOUGH. MERE PAYMENT BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE IS ALSO NOT SACROSA NCT NOR CAN IT MAKE A NON-GENUINE TRANSACTION GENUINE ONE VIDE CIT VS. PRECISION FINANCE PVT. LTD. (1994) 208 ITR 465 470 471 (CAL ). CF. NIZAM WOOL AGENCY VS. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 318 320 (ALL). THEREF ORE IN THE BACKGROUND OF ABOVE DISCUSSION THE ADDITION OF RS. 10 72 000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCO UNT AND IS UPHELD. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSES SEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINLY REITERATED BEFORE US THE EXPLANATION OFFERED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT AS PER THE E-MAIL CONFIR MATION OF SHRI VIPUL SANGHAVI HE HAD ENCASHED US $ 55 000 DURING HIS VI SIT TO INDIA IN THE YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 AND SINCE THE PROCEEDS THEREOF GIVEN BY HIM TO SHRI ITA 6737/MUM/2010 7 C.N. SANGHAVI WAS SUFFICIENT TO COVER THE CASH DEPO SITS FOUND TO BE MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE THE SAID DEPOSITS WERE DULY EXPLAINED. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THIS EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSES SEE HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED AND REJECTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) GIVING CO GENT AND CONVINCING REASONS. AS OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS CON TEXT THERE WAS NO OTHER EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE OTHER THAN THE E-MAI L CONFIRMATION OF SHRI VIPUL SANGHAVI TO SHOW THE ENCASHMENT OF US $ 55 00 0 IN INDIA AS CLAIMED. THERE WAS ALSO BO EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE TO CO-RELATE ANY SUCH ENCASHMENT OF US $ 55 000 WITH THE CASH DEPOSI TS FOUND TO BE MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. NO REASON WHATSO EVER WAS GIVEN AS TO WHY THE PROCEEDS OF ENCASHMENT OF US $ 55 000 IF ANY WERE DEPOSITED BY SHRI C.N. SANGHAVI IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE I NSTEAD OF HIS OWN ACCOUNT. SOME OF SUCH ENCASHMENTS WERE CLAIMED TO BE MADE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 WHEREAS THE DEPOSITS IN CASH WERE FOUND TO BE MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR 2005-0 6. THERE WAS THUS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE BASED ON THE SO CALLED ENCASHMENT OF US $ 55 000. MOREOVER THIS NEW EXPL ANATION WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE FIRST TI ME AND IT WAS ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT FROM THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSES SEE THAT THE DEPOSITS IN CASH WERE MADE FROM THE AMOUNTS REMITTED BY HER EVE RY MONTH TO HER IN- LAWS. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US THE LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE GIVEN AN OPPORTU NITY TO SUPPORT AND SUBSTANTIATE HER EXPLANATION REGARDING THE ENCASHME NT OF US $ 55 000 BY ADDUCING OTHER CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. WE FIND IT DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR OPINION WHEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS OFFERED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE A.O. AS WELL AS BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSITS AND EVEN THE AD DITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF E-MAIL CONFIRMATION OF SHRI VIPUL SANGHAVI WAS ALSO ADMITTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) DURING THE COURSE O F APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IT IS NOT A FIT CASE TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO T HE ASSESSEE WHEN SHE HAS ITA 6737/MUM/2010 8 FAILED TO AVAIL THE OPPORTUNITY SO GIVEN EARLIER. MOREOVER NO REASON WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN ADVANCED BEFORE US FOR THE FAIL URE OF THE ASSESSEE TO FILE SUCH CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). EVEN BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED SUCH EVIDENCE SEEKING ADMISSION THERE OF. HAVING REGARD TO ALL THESE FACTS OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS FOUND TO BE MAD E IN HER BANK ACCOUNT AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. TO THE TOTAL INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE HAS RIGHTLY BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). WE THEREFORE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) A ND UPHOLDING THE SAME ON THIS ISSUE WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. 8 9 *) -8 3 !8 3 :; ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12-7-2013. . # 7 3 56. ! <#)9 12-7-2013 6 3 SD/- SD/- (DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN) (P.M. JAGTAP ) * '#$ JUDICIAL MEMBER ! '#$ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; <#) DATED _ 12-7-2013 %.*).'./ RK SR. PS # 7 3 1*=> ? >. # 7 3 1*=> ? >. # 7 3 1*=> ? >. # 7 3 1*=> ? >./ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. /0 / THE APPELLANT 2. 12/0 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. @ () / THE CIT(A)7 MUMBAI. 4. @ / CIT 3 MUMBAI 5. >%C 1**) / DR ITAT MUMBAI D BENCH 6. &- D / GUARD FILE. # 7)' # 7)' # 7)' # 7)' / BY ORDER '2> 1* //TRUE COPY// E E E E/ // /': ': ': ': ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) / ITAT MUMBAI