T.Nagoor Meeran, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 1025/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6823 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A SUNDARARAJAN
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources; Peak credit
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , , # BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. I.T.A. NOS. 1024 TO 1028/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 TO 2009-10 SHRI. T. NAGOOR MEERAN, 8, MALAYATHAMMAN KOIL STREET, MANURPET, PADI, CHENNAI 600 050. [PAN: ADPPN 1866R] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON- CORPORATE WARD -7(1), CHENNAI 34. ( / APPELLANT) ( $%' /RESPONDENT ) '( / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE $%'( / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. A. SUNDARARAJAN, ADDL. CIT ( /DATE OF HEARING : 24.09.2019 ( /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.12.2019 / O R D E R PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE FILED ALL THE ABOVE APPEALS AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-7, IN ; ITA NO . 40/CIT(A)- 7/2011-12 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, ITA NO. 8/CIT(A)-7/2011- :-2-: ITA NOS.1024 TO 1028/MDS/2015 12 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, ITA NO. 7/CIT(A )-7/2011-12 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, ITA NO. 6/CIT(A)-7/201 1-12 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, ITA NO. 5/CIT(A)-7/2011-12 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, DATED 28.01.2015. 2. MR. T. NAGOORN MEERAN, THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDU AL, WAS CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN SCRAP METAL AND WAS ALSO GETTING REN TAL INCOME. ON 03.09.2009, A SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED IN THE RESIDENTI AL AND BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, CERTAIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DOCUMENTS WERE IMPOUNDED BASED ON WHICH THE ASSESSEES ASSESSMENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 TO 2009-10 WERE COMPLETED MAKING CERTAIN ADDITIONS. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THOSE ORDERS, THE ASS ESSEE FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWE D THOSE APPEALS. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THOSE ORDERS, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE ABOVE APPEALS. 3. ITA NO. 1024/MDS/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 & AGRICULTURAL INCOME ISSUE, BEING COMMON, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS VIZ A Y 2005- 06 TO AY 2009-10 : 3.1 THE LD AR ARGUED ON ONLY ONE GROUND FOR THIS A SSESSMENT YEAR, WHICH IS ALSO COMMON FOR ALL THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT Y EARS, VIZ THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN FIXING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT A MEAGER SUM OF RS. :-3-: ITA NOS.1024 TO 1028/MDS/2015 1,50,000/- AS AGAINST RS. 2,00,000/- CLAIMED FOR EA CH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 & 2006-07 AND THE CIT(A) ERRED IN FIXI NG THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT A MEAGER SUM OF RS. 1,50,000/- AS AGAINST RS. 2,50,000/- CLAIMED FOR EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 & 2 008-09 AND RS. 3,50,000/- CLAIMED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, RESPECTIVELY. IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER APPEAL GROUNDS FOR THIS ASSESS MENT YEAR, THE LD. AR HAS NOT PRESSED THEM. THUS, THIS ISSUE IS COM MON FOR THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS VIZ A Y 2005-06 TO AY2009-10. 3.2 FOR THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE ASSESSEE CLAIME D AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ; RS. 2,00,000/- FOR EACH OF THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2005-06 & 2006-07, RS. 2,50,000/- LAKHS FOR EACH OF THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2007-08 & 2008-09 AND RS. 3,50,000/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2009-10. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INHERITED 6.73 ACR ES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FROM HIS FATHER AND CLAIMED AGRICULTURAL INCOM E WHICH WAS ALSO USED FOR INVESTING IN THE PROPERTIES. HOWEVER, WHI LE MAKING THE ASSESSMENTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR WANT OF EVID ENCE DID NOT ALLOW THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 TO 2009-10. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILE D APPEALS ON THIS ISSUE FOR ALL THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE LD. CIT (A) FOUND THAT THE AO REJECTED THE VAOS CERTIFICATE ON THE GROUND THAT T HE CERTIFICATE :-4-: ITA NOS.1024 TO 1028/MDS/2015 PERTAINED TO THE PERIOD 01.01.2005 TO 31.12.2005 IN STEAD OF REQUIRED PERIOD OF 01.04.2004 TO 31.03.2005. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE CERTIFICATE PROVES THE EXISTENCE OF THE AG RICULTURAL LANDS AND CULTIVATION OF THE CROPS. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, AFTER THE SURVEY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED THE AGRICULT URAL INCOME OF RS. 1,50,000/-. THEREFORE, THE LD CIT(A) HELD THAT TH E AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS CAN SAFELY BE CONSIDERED AT RS. 1,50,000/- AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW THE AGRICU LTURAL INCOME AT RS. 1,50,000/- FOR EACH OF THESE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND AL LOW NECESSARY THE CREDIT FOR THE SAME WHILE DETERMINING THE UNEXPLAIN ED INVESTMENTS, IF ANY, FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN THIS R EGARD, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN FIXING THE AGRICULTURA L INCOME AT A MEAGER SUM OF RS. 1,50,000/- AS AGAINST THE HIGHER CLAIM M ADE BY THE ASSESSSEE IN RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEAR. RELYING ON THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION IN THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2004-05 IN ITA 1023/MDS/2015 DT 26.8.2015, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL U PHELD THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM THE SA ME LAND AT RS. 2,50,000/-, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEES ADM ITTED AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS BE ALLOWE D. 3.3 PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ON THE DU E CONSIDERATION OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE LOWER AUTHORI TIES HAVE DETERMINED :-5-: ITA NOS.1024 TO 1028/MDS/2015 THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS. 1,50,000/- PER EACH OF THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT LAID ANY MATERI AL TO ASSAIL THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, THE LD. DR PLEADED THAT THE POSITION TAKEN BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES BE UPHELD. 4. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT MATERIAL. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE THAT THIS TRI BUNAL ON DUE CONSIDERATION ACCEPTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN T HE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IN ITA 1023/M DS/2015 DT 26.8.2015 AT RS. 2,50,000/-. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF T HE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEES ADMITTED AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE S UBSEQUENT YEARS, IE IN EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR FROM A Y 2005-06 TO AY 2009-10 IS REASONABLE AND HENCE ALLOW THE CORRESPONDING GROU NDS OF ASSESSE FOR EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR FROM A Y 2005-06 TO A Y 2009-10 AND DIRECT THE A O TO GIVE THE CORRESPONDING CREDITS OF THESE AGRICULTURAL INCOME , AS HELD BY THE LD CIT(A), WHILE DETERMININ G THE UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS, IF ANY, IN THE ASSESSEES CASE. 4.1 IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES. 5. ITA NO. 1025/MDS/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07: :-6-: ITA NOS.1024 TO 1028/MDS/2015 5.1 WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07,THE ASSESSING OFFICER, INTER ALIA, ADDED ; RS. 1 0,00,000/- TOWARDS THE ADVANCE PAID FOR A PROPERTY AT THIRUVERKADU, RS. 1, 40,000/- TOWARDS A PROPERTY AT MANNURPET, AMBATTUR ANDRS. 1,80,196/- T OWARDS MARGIN MONEY PAID FOR EICHER VAN, AS UNACCOUNTED INVESTME NTS. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THAT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BE FORE THE CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THOSE ADDITIONS. AGGRIEVED AGAIN ST THAT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL. 5.2 THE LD. AR PLEADED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,00,000/- TOWARDS THE ADVANCE MAD E FOR A PROPERTY AT S.NO. 25/3, 5524 & 3744 IN THE ASSESSEES HAND AND IN ANY EVENT 50% OF SUCH AMOUNT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED AND NOT T HE WHOLE ADVANCE, AS THE PROPERTY WAS AGREED TO BE PURCHASED BY THE A SSESSEE ALONG WITH SHRI SINDHAMADHAR, AND THE IMPUGNED ADVANCE WAS MAD E JOINTLY BY THE ASSESSEE AND MR. SINDHAMADHAR, EACH CONTRIBUTING R S. 5 LAKHS ON 22.02.2006. THE AO HAS WRONGLY TAKEN THE ENTIRE RS . 10 LAKHS AS HAVING BEEN CONTRIBUTED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONE. THE SAID SUM OF RS. 5 LAKHS CONTRIBUTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DEMONSTRATED IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT THAT IT WAS OUT OF THE EXPLAINED SOURCES. :-7-: ITA NOS.1024 TO 1028/MDS/2015 5.3 PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE ONLY HAS PAID THE ENTIRE ADVANCE OF RS. 10 LAKHS, ALTHOUGH THE AGREEMENT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CA NCELLED, THE PROPERTY WAS ALSO PURCHASED BY A THIRD PARTY AND TH E IMPUGNED ADVANCE IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BACK ON A L ATER DATE. THE SOURCES FOR THE PAYMENT OF ADVANCE OF RS. 10 LAKHS STOOD UNACCOUNTED IN THE ASSESSEES HAND AND HENCE THE AO IS JUSTIFIE D IN ASSESSING THE SAME AS AN UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE ASSESSEE S HAND. THEREFORE, THE LD DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORI TIES. 5.4 WITH REGARD TO THE ADVANCE MADE AT RS. 1,40,000 /- TOWARDS THE PROPERTY AT MALAYATHAMMAN KOIL STREET, THE LD AR PL EADED THAT THIS INVESTMENT WAS CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF MRS. ASIF A BHANUIN HER ASSESSMENT MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. I N THIS REGARD, THE LD. AR INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF THE AS SESSMENT PASSED IN THE CASE OF MRS. N. ASIFA BHANU U/S. 143(3) R.W. 14 7 DATED 23.12.2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, WHEREIN THE SOURCE S FOR THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN AGRICULTURAL LAND AT RADHAPURAM , VACANT LAND AT AMBATTUR, LAND AND BUILDING AT MALAYATHAMMAN KOIL S TREET, WAS ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE HANDS OF M RS. N. ASIFABHANU AND RELIED ON IT. :-8-: ITA NOS.1024 TO 1028/MDS/2015 5.4.1 PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT RS. 1,40,000/- WAS PAID AS AN ADVANCE TOWARDS THE PROP ERTY ON 26.10.2005 BUT HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EXPLANATION FOR THE SOURC ES BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). SINCE, THE ADVANCE WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSE E DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR VIZ A Y 2006-07 AN D THE SOURCES WERE NOT EXPLAINED, THE SOURCES OF THIS ADVANCE HAS TO B E ASSESSED AS AN INCOME IN THE ASSESSEES HAND ONLY THAT TOO DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ITSELF. THEREFORE, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED TH AT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY DISTURBANCE. 5.5 WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION MADE TOWARDS THE MA RGIN MONEY PAID FOR EICHER VAN OF RS. 1,80,196/- AS AN UNACCOUNTED INCOME, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING TH E ACTION OF THE AO. 5.5.1 PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR TOOK US THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT THE COST OF EI CHER VAN WAS RS. 3,59,196/-, AS AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTA INED A LOAN FROM ICICI BANK AT RS. 1,79,000/-ONLY. FOR THE BALANCE SUM OF RS. 1,80,196/-, THE SOURCES OF INVESTMENT WAS NOT EXPLA INED BY THE :-9-: ITA NOS.1024 TO 1028/MDS/2015 ASSESSEE AND HENCE, THE LD DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6 WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL. WITH REGARD TO THE ADVANCE PAID FOR THE P ROPERTY AT S.NO. 25/3, 5524 & 3744, SINCE THE ASSESSE ALONE HAS PAID THE ENTIRE ADVANCE OF RS. 10 LAKHS ON 22.02.2006 , THE SOURCES FOR TH IS PAYMENT HAS TO BE EXPLAINED BY HIM ALONE, WHICH HE FAILED. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. WITH REGARD TO THE ADVANCE MADE AT RS. 1,40,000/- TOWARD S THE PROPERTY AT MALAYATHAMMAN KOIL STREET, THE ASSESSE HAS ADMITTE D THAT RS. 1,40,000/- WAS PAID AS AN ADVANCE TOWARDS THE PROPE RTY ON 26.10.2005, BUT HE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EXPLANATION FOR THE SO URCES EITHER BEFORE AO OR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) . TAKING IN TO ACCOUNT THAT THE IMPUGNED ADVANCE WAS PAID DURING THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR, IE T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE SOURCES OF THI S ADVANCE HAS TO BE ASSESSED AS AN INCOME IN THE ASSESSEES HAND ONLY THAT TOO IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ONLY. THEREFORE, THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) DOES NOT REQUIRE AN Y DISTURBANCE. WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION MADE TOWARDS MARGIN MONEY PA ID FOR EICHER VAN OF RS. 1,80,196/- AS AN UNACCOUNTED INCOME, WE FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. DR THAT THE COST OF EICHER V AN WAS RS. 3,59,196/- :-10-: ITA NOS.1024 TO 1028/MDS/2015 , AS AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED A LOA N FROM ICICI BANK AT RS. 1,79,000/- ONLY. FOR THE BALANCE SUM OF RS. 1, 80,196/-, THE SOURCES OF INVESTMENT WAS NOT EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AN D HENCE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES DO NOT REQUIRE ANY DISTURB ANCE. THUS, THE CORRESPONDING GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSE FAIL. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 8. ITA NO. 1026/MDS/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-0 8: 8.1 WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE FILED A CASH FLOW STATEMENT. AFTER EXAMINING THE SOURCES, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, INTER ALIA, MADE AN ADDITION OF ;RS. 14,00,000/- TOWARDS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT FOR THE HOUSE CONSTRUCTION, DID NOT GIVE CREDIT FOR THE RENTAL ADVANCE OF RS. 2,00,000/-AND ADDED RS.15,91,478/- T OWARDS UNACCOUNTED DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LD CIT(A) PA RTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THAT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL. 9. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT T O HAVE SEEN THAT THE ENTRY MADE IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT IS WRONG AND THE SHIVA :-11-: ITA NOS.1024 TO 1028/MDS/2015 CONSTRUCTION HAS ALREADY CONFIRMED THAT THEY HAVE NEVER CONSTRUCTED ANYTHING ON THE LAND AT NO. 6, MALAYATHAMMAN KOIL S TREET. FURTHER, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN NOT GIVING THE CREDIT FOR THE RENTAL ADVANCE RECEIVED DURING THE Y EAR OF RS. 2,00,000/- AND HE ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SUM OF RS. 1,18,522/ -, OUT OF THE DEPOSITS WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA. 10. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THAT IN THE CASH FLOW STATEM ENT FILED BY HIM, HE HAS ERRONEOUSLY MENTIONED THAT HE HAS PAID RS. 14,0 0,000/- TO M/S. SHIVA CONSTRUCTION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AT NO. 6, MALAYATHAMMAN KOIL STREET, CHENNAI . THE SITE PURC HASED HAD ALREADY AN EXISTING BUILDING AND ASSESSEE HAS NEVER CONSTRU CTED OR PUT UP ANY FURTHER CONSTRUCTION IN THE SAID PROPERTY. HOWEVER , THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF FURNISHED THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT CLAIMING THAT HE HAS PAID RS. 14,00,000/- TO M/S. SHIVA CONS TRUCTION FOR CONSTRUCTION. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SUCH AN AMOUNT IN THE OUTFLOW SIDE, WHICH CREATES AN IMBALANCE ON THE INF LOW SIDE TOO, TOWARDS WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS TO EXPLAIN THE SOURC ES AND THEREFORE, THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS CORRECTL Y DECIDED THE ISSUE. :-12-: ITA NOS.1024 TO 1028/MDS/2015 10.1 WITH REGARD TO THE UNACCOUNTED DEPOSITS INTO B ANK ACCOUNT, THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE'S BANK ACCOUNT MA INTAINED WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA SHOWED A TOTAL DEPOSITS OF RS.1 5,91,478/- DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07. IN THE ABSENCE OF TANGI BLE EXPLANATIONS FROM THE ASSESSE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER BROUGHT THE TOTA L DEPOSITS OF RS.15,91,478/- TO TAX AS AN UNACCOUNTED DEPOSITS. ON APPEAL, THE LD CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ABOVE BANK ACCOUNT IS AN ACCOU NTED BANK ACCOUNT AND THE CLOSING BALANCES AS ON 31ST MARCH OF EVERY YEARWAS ALSO REFLECTED IN THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS OF THE ASSESS EE. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING ALL THE DEPOSITS INTO THIS ACCOUNT DURING THE YEAR AS AN UNACCOUNTED DEPOSITS. FURTHER, THESE DEPOSITS ARE NOT IN THE FORM OF CASH. OUT OF THE TO TAL DEPOSITS OF RS.15,91,478/- FOUND DURING THE YEAR, ONLY RS.2,36, 500/- ARE THE CASH DEPOSITS MADE AND THE BALANCE DEPOSITS OF RS.13,55, 478/- ARE THE CHEQUE/DD CLEARANCES ETC. AS AGAINST THESE CASH DEP OSITS, THERE WERE CASH WITHDRAWALS DURING THE YEAR OF RS.1,50,000/- O N 19.06.2006, WHICH COULD BE A PARTIAL SOURCE FOR THE SUBSEQUENT CASH D EPOSITS. ALL OTHER TRANSACTIONS, I.E. OTHER THAN CASH DEPOSITS/ WITHDR AWALS, ARE VERIFIABLE. HENCE, THE LD CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER'S ACTION OF BRINGING THE TOTAL (ENTIRE) DEPOSITS OF RS.15,91,478/- TO TA X IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THEREFORE, THE LD CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO CONSIDER ONLY THE PEAK OF THE CASH CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.4,25,536 [CR] FOUND ON :-13-: ITA NOS.1024 TO 1028/MDS/2015 05.02.2007, AS AN UNACCOUNTED DEPOSITS INTO THE BAN K ACCOUNT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT. AT THE SAME TIME, IT IS TO B E REMEMBERED THAT, ON THE SAME ASPECT AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,07,014/- HAS A LREADY BEEN CONSIDERED FOR ASSESSMENT, BEING THE PEAK CREDIT BA LANCE IN THE ACCOUNT, IN THE ASSESSMENT OF A.Y.2005-06. HENCE , A NECESSARY CREDIT FOR THE SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN IN THE PRESENT YEAR WHILE BRINGING THE PEAK CREDIT BALANCE TO TAX OF THE PRESENT YEAR. SINCE AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,07,014/- WAS ALREADY CONSIDERED IN THE ASSESSM ENT OF A.Y.2006-07, THE ADDITION REQUIRED TO BE MADE IN THE PRESENT A.Y .2007-08 WILL BE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO AMOUNTS, I.E. RS.4,25, 536/- MINUS RS.3,07,014/-, AMOUNTING TO RS.1,18,522/-. HENCE, T HE LD CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER ONLY RS. 1,18,522/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS, AGAINST RS.15,91,478/- CONSIDERED BY HIM IN HIS ORDER. THER EFORE, THE LD DR PLEADED THAT THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT( A) IS IN ORDER AND HENCE BE UPHELD . 10.2 WITH REGARD TO THE ACTION OF THE AO IN NOT GIV ING THE CREDIT FOR THE RENTAL ADVANCE RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR OF RS. 2,00 ,000/- , THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE PLEADED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT HE HAS RECEIVED RS. 2,00,000/- FROM SHRI JUSTIN BY CHEQUE ON 17.06.2006 AND HENCE, NECESSARY CREDIT SHOULD BE GIVEN WHILE COMPU TING THE UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT THERE WAS A CREDIT :-14-: ITA NOS.1024 TO 1028/MDS/2015 IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON 17.06.2006 FOR RS. 2,00,000/ - BY WAY OF INWARD REMITTANCE. BUT, IT WAS NOT KNOWN WHETHER THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM SHRI JUSTIN OR NOT. SINCE, THE UNACC OUNTED INVESTMENT WAS ARRIVED OUT ON THE BASIS OF PEAK CASH CREDIT BA LANCES ALONE, SUPRA, THE LD. CS IT(A) OBSERVATION THAT THE RENTAL ADVAN CE RECEIVED IN CHEQUE WOULD NOT CAUSE ANY MISTAKE IN NOT GIVING THE CRED IT FOR THE RENTAL ADVANCE IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT IS IN ORDER AND THEREFORE, THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT(A)CORRECTLY DID NOT CONSI DER THE RENTAL ADVANCE FOR GIVING ANY CREDIT. 11. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT MATERIAL. ON THE ISSUE OF ADDITION TOWARDS UNACCOUN TED INVESTMENT FOR THE HOUSE CONSTRUCTION AT RS. 14,00,000/-, CONSIDER ING THE ASSESSEES PLEA THAT THE ENTRY MADE BY HIM IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT IS WRONG AND THE SHIVA CONSTRUCTION HAS ALREADY CONFIRMED T HAT THEY HAVE NEVER CONSTRUCTED ANYTHING ON THE LAND AT NO. 6, MALAYATH AMMAN KOIL STREET ETC., WE DEEM IT FIT TO REMIT THIS ISSUE BACK TO TH E A O FOR A FRESH EXAMINATION. THE ASSESSEE SHALL FURNISH ALL RELEVAN T MATERIAL BEFORE THE A O AND COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AO IN A CCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE AO AFTER AFFORDING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 12. WITH REGARD TO ISSUE ADDITION OF RS. 1,18,522/ -, OUT OF THE DEPOSITS WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA, SINCE THE LD CIT (A) HAS ARRIVED THE :-15-: ITA NOS.1024 TO 1028/MDS/2015 UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS AT RS. 1,18,522/-, SUPRA, B ASED ON THE PEAK CASH CREDITS ALONE THAT TOO AFTER GIVING FURTHER TE LESCOPING FOR THE ADDITION MADE IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR , WE D O NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION ON THIS ISSUE. ON THE SAME ANALOGY, ON THE ISSUE THAT AO HAS NOT GIVEN THE CREDIT FOR THE RE NTAL ADVANCE RECEIVED IN CHEQUE DURING THE YEAR, SINCE ALL THE CHEQUE REC EIPTS INCLUDING THE IMPUGNED RENTAL ADVANCE WAS NOT CONSIDERED IN THE A BOVE QUANTIFICATION OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT MADE BY THE LD CIT(A) , W E FIND MERIT IN THE LD DRS SUBMISSION ON THIS ISSUE AND HENCE DI SMISS THE CORRESPONDING GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08 IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PUR POSES. 14. ITA NO. 1027/MDS/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09: 14.1 WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2008-09, THE ASSESSEE FILED A CASH FLOW STATEMENT. AFTER EXAMIN ING THE SOURCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, INTER ALIA, MADE ADDITION TOWARD S UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT TOWARDS ADVANCE TO SUPPLIER AT RS. 4 ,54,000/- , TO A SCRAP SELLER , AS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY, AND THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN CREDIT FOR THE RENTAL ADVANCE AT RS. 3,20,000/-. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED AN :-16-: ITA NOS.1024 TO 1028/MDS/2015 APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LD CIT(A) DISMISSED T HE APPEAL. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THAT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED TH IS APPEAL. 15. THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4 ,54,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE TO SUPPLIER, EVEN THOUGH THE BOO K RESULTS IN RESPECT OF THE BUSINESS HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN NOT GIVI NG CREDIT FOR THE RENTAL ADVANCE DURING THE YEAR OF RS. 3,20,000/-. THE LD C IT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT ALL THE INVESTMENTS ARE FULLY RECONCILED WITH THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND HE OUGHT TO HAVE DIRECTED THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER TO TREAT ALL THE INVESTMENTS AS FULLY EXPLAINED AND DELETED THE ADDITIONS. 16. PER CONTRA, THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE ADVANCE OF RS. 4,54,000/- WAS PAID TO THE SUPPLIER, AS SHOWN IN THE 'CASH FLOW STATEMENT' (OF F.Y.2007-08) AND THE RETURN OF INCOME OF A.Y.2008-09, WAS ON ACCOUNT OF THE BUSINESS TRANSAC TIONS ETC, BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY FU RTHER EVIDENCES IN THIS REGARD. THEREFORE, THE LD CIT(A) HELD THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IN CONSIDERING THE ADVANCE OF RS. 4,54,000/- PAID TO SUPPLIERS, AS AN INVESTMENT OF THE YEAR AND DETERMINING THE CORRESPONDING UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS AND :-17-: ITA NOS.1024 TO 1028/MDS/2015 BRINGING TO TAX IS JUSTIFIED AND CONFIRMED. EVEN B EFORE THIS HONBLE ITAT ALSO , THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT LAID ANY MATERIAL IN SU PPORT OF ITS CONTENTION AND IT COULD NOT POINT OUT HOW THE DECISIONS ARRIV ED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE WRONG THEREFORE, THE LD DR SUBMITTE D THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. WITH REGARD TO NON -CONSIDERATION OF RENTAL ADVANCES RECEIVED AT RS.3,20,000, THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) THAT HE REC EIVED RENTAL ADVANCES OF RS.1,50,000/-, RS.1,00,000/- AND RS.70, 000/- DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR, THROUGH BANK ACCOUNTS (AS CREDITED IN TO THE UNION BANK OF INDIA ACCOUNT) AND HENCE NECESSARY CREDIT BE GIV EN WHILE COMPUTING THE UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS, IF ANY. THE LD CIT(A) HELD THAT AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE ASSESSEE'S BANK ACCOUNT OF UNION B ANK OF INDIA THERE WERE CREDIT ENTRY OF RS.70,000/-, RS.1,00,000/- AND RS.1,50,000/- ON 18.04.2007, 21.05.2007 AND 09.10,2007, RESPECTIVELY , BY WAY OF INWARD REMITTANCES (CLEARANCES). BUT , IT IS NOT KNOWN WHE THER THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED ARE TOWARDS THE RENTAL ADVANCES OR NOT. IN ANY CASE, SINCE THE UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT WAS ARRIVED OUT ON THE BASIS OF PEAK CASH CREDIT BALANCE, FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS, AS WAS DONE IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR, SUPRA, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF CREDIT FOR THE RENTAL ADVANCES RECEIVED IN CHEQUE WOULD NOT HAVE ANY IMPACT AND HENCE THE LD CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED :-18-: ITA NOS.1024 TO 1028/MDS/2015 THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM. THEREFORE, THE LD DR SUPPORTE D THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) . 17. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT MATERIAL. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT POINTED OUT H OW THE DECISIONS ARRIVED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THE ABOVE ISSUE S ARE WRONG AND HAS NOT LAID ANY MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTIONS BEFORE US, WE FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD DR , SUPRA, AND HENCE DISMISS THE CORRESPONDING GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 19. ITA NO. 1028MDS/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10: 19.1 WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2009-10, THE ASSESSEE FILED A CASH FLOW STATEMENT. AFTER EXAMIN ING THE SOURCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, INTER ALIA, MADE ADDITION TOWARD S UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY PURCHASE AT RS. 65,00,000/ - , UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN HOUSE CONSTRUCTION AT RS. 12,00,000/ - AND UNACCOUNTED BANK DEPOSITS AT RS.18,68,916. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESS EE FILED AN APPEAL :-19-: ITA NOS.1024 TO 1028/MDS/2015 BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LD CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED TH E APPEAL. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THAT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL. 20. THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASE D THE PROPERTY ON BEHALF OF HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW AND THE ENTIRE CONSI DERATION OF RS.65,00,000/-, INCLUDING THE ADVANCE OF RS.14,00,0 00/- WAS ACTUALLY PAID BY HIS MOTHER IN LAW ONLY. OUT OF THE TOTAL CO NSIDERATION OF RS.65,00,000/-, THE ADVANCE OF RS.14,00,000/- WAS P AID IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 AND THE BALANCE OF RS.51,00,000/- WAS PAID IN THE FOLLOWING FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10, AND ACCORDINGLY T HE PROPERTY WAS REGISTERED IN HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW'S NAME ON 06.07.200 9. THEREFORE ,THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTE NT OF RS.14,00,000O/- MADE TOWARDS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS IN PROPERTY PU RCHASE AND HE FAILED TO NOTE THAT EVEN THE ADVANCE FOR THE PROPE RTY WAS PAID OUT OF THE FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT'S IN-LAWS. THE LD AR INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE ITO , WARD 2, TIRUNELVELI DT 10.01.2017 TO THE ASSESSEES MOTHER IN LAW, SMT. HATOONBEEVI , PAN AHVPH1631G FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 SEEKING THE SOURCES FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY. SINCE THE AO OF TH E ASSESSEES MOTHER IN LAW HAS TAKEN UP THE MATTER IN HER CASE, THE IMPUGN ED SOURCES COULD HAVE BEEN ASSESSED IN HER CASE. WHEN THE BENCH ASKE D THE CURRENT STATUS, THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE RELATIONSHIP B ETWEEN THEM IS NOT :-20-: ITA NOS.1024 TO 1028/MDS/2015 CORDIAL NOW AND HENCE THE CURRENT POSITION IS UNKNO WN BUT PLEADED TO ALLOW THE APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE. THE LD AR FURTHER S UBMITTED THE LD CIT(A) HAVING FOUND THAT NO CONSTRUCTION WAS CARRIED OUT I N RESPECT OF THE LAND AT NO.5A, KSR NAGAR, OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE ADDI TION OF RS.12 LAKHS INSTEAD OF SENDING THE ISSUE BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPE ALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING A SUM OF RS.76,008/-OUT OF THE DEPOSITS INTO THE APPELLANT'S ACCOUNT WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA AND HE OUGHT TO HA VE SEEN THAT ALL THE INVESTMENTS ARE FULLY RECONCILED WITH THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND HE OUGHT TO HAVE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TRE AT ALL THE INVESTMENTS AS FULLY EXPLAINED AND DELETES THE ADDITION. THEREF ORE, THE LD AR PLEADED TO ALLOW THE APPEALS. 21. PER CONTRA, THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH MRS BUHARISHARIFA, DURING THE FINANC IAL YEAR 2008-09, FOR PURCHASE OF A PROPERTY LOCATED AT NO.9, ASAITHA MBI STREET, PADI, CHENNAI-50 FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.65,00,00 0/- AND PAID AN ADVANCE OF RS.14,00,000/-, AS ON THE DATE OF THE AG REEMENT. THE AGREEMENT CONTAINED THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE PURCHASER (BUYER) OF THE PROPERTY. ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS F OR THE A O FOR CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF T HE ASSESSEE IS THE STATEMENT OF THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY, WHO STATED THAT THE SALE :-21-: ITA NOS.1024 TO 1028/MDS/2015 CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE. HOWE VER, THE LD CIT(A) HELD THAT UNDER THE INDIAN CONDITIONS, NORMALLY THE MONEY TRANSACTIONS (I.E. PAYMENTS AND RECEIPTS OF CASH) ARE GENERALLY HANDLED BY THE MEN- FOLK. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE'S EXPLANATION THAT THE MO NEY OF RS.65,00,000/- RECEIVED FROM HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW WAS PAID TO THE SELLER ON BEHALF HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW, IS NOT AN ABNORMAL OR UNCOMMON PRACTICE. HENCE , NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAW FROM THE S AID STATEMENT OF THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY. THEREFORE, THE LD CIT( A) HELD THAT A O IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONSIDERING AND CONCLUDING THAT THE PR OPERTY BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE AND BRINGING THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS .65,00,000/- TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE WERE NO EVIDENCES TO SHOW THAT THE TOTAL PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF RS.65,00,000/- WAS PAID AS ON 31.03.2009. AS ON 31.03.2009, THE TOTAL AMOUNT PAID WAS ONLY RS.14,00,000/-, WHICH WAS PAID BY WAY OF ADVANCE, A S PER THE AGREEMENT. THE BALANCE OF RS.51,00,000/- CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID ONLY DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10, I.E. AFTER 31.03.2009. HENCE,THE UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS IN THE PURCHASE OF THE PROP ERTY, FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDING ON 31.03.2009, SHOULD BE ONLY RS. 14,00,000/-, AND NOT RS.65,00,000/-. IN ANY CASE, AS ON THE DAT E OF THE SIGNING THE AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY DURING THE F INANCIAL YEAR 2008- 2009, THE ADVANCE PAID OF RS.14,00,000/- HAS FLOWN FROM THE ASSESSEE AND NOT FROM THE ASSESSEE'S MOTHER-IN-LAW AS THERE WERE NO EVIDENCES :-22-: ITA NOS.1024 TO 1028/MDS/2015 TO SHOW THAT THE MONEY WAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED FROM T HE ASSESSEE'S MOTHER IN LAW AND ESPECIALLY WHEN THE AGREEMENT WAS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF. HENCE, AS ON THE DATE OF SIG NING THE AGREEMENT, THE ADVANCE PAYMENT OF RS.14,00,000/- REPRESENTS TH E UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. ALSO, THE ASSESSE E COULD NOT BRING ANYTHING ON RECORD THAT HE WAS IN RECEIPT OF THIS A DVANCE FROM HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW TILL 31.03.2009. HENCE, THE LD CIT(A) HELD THAT THE IMPUGNED ADVANCE OF RS.14,00,000/- PAID BY THE ASSE SSEE AT THE TIME OF SIGNING THE AGREEMENT (AND ALSO CONTINUED TILL 3 1.03.2009) FORMS AN INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND NEEDS TO BE REC KONED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09. THE BALANCE OF RS.51,00 ,000/- CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS IT W AS PAID IN THE SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR AND ALSO THE PROPERTY WAS ACTUALLY REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE'S MOTHER-IN-LAW. THEREF ORE, LD CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ACTION OF THE A O IN CONSIDERING AND DETE RMINING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS IN THE ABOVE PROPERTY TO THE EXTENT OF THE ABOVE ADVANCE OF RS.14,00,000/- IS JUSTIFIED AND CONFIRMED. THE L D DR SUBMITTED THAT EVEN NOW, BEFORE THIS HONBLE TRIBUNAL ALSO, THE A SSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO LAY ANY MATERIAL TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ASSESSEES CLA IM. THE ASSESSEES PLEA BASED ON THE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE IT O, WARD 2, TIRUNELVELI DT 10.01.2017 TO THE ASSESSEES MOTHER IN LAW, SMT. HATOONBEEVI , FOR :-23-: ITA NOS.1024 TO 1028/MDS/2015 THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 , SUPRA, SEEKING THE SO URCES FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY, IS OF NO HELP TO THE A SSESSEE AS THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IS RELATED TO THE PERIOD FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 TOWARDS WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL. THUS, THE LD DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER A UTHORITIES. 22. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUG H RELEVANT MATERIAL. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE REVENUE UNEARTH ED AN AGREEMENT AT THE TIME OF SURVEY AS PER WHICH ASSESSEE ENTERED IN TO AN AGREEMENT WITH MRS BUHARISHARIFA, DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2 008-09, FOR PURCHASE OF A PROPERTY LOCATED AT NO.9, ASAITHAMBI STREET, P ADI, CHENNAI-50 FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.65,00,000/- AND PAID AN A DVANCE OF RS.14,00,000/-, AS ON THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT. TH AT AGREEMENT CONTAINED THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE PURCHASER (BUYER) OF THE PROPERTY.AS ON THE DATE OF THE SIGNING THE AGREEMEN T FOR PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-2009, T HE ADVANCE PAID OF RS.14,00,000/- HAS FLOWN FROM THE ASSESSE AND NOT FROM THE ASSESSEE'S MOTHER-IN-LAW AS THERE WERE NO EVIDENCES TO SHOW TH AT THE MONEY WAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE'S MOTHER IN LAW AND ESPECIALLY WHEN THE AGREEMENT WAS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE HIMSE LF. HENCE, AS ON THE DATE OF SIGNING THE AGREEMENT, THE ADVANCE PAYM ENT MADE AT RS.14,00,000/- REPRESENTS THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMEN TS MADE BY THE :-24-: ITA NOS.1024 TO 1028/MDS/2015 ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BRING ANYT HING ON RECORD THAT HE WAS IN RECEIPT OF THIS ADVANCE FROM HIS MOTHER-I N-LAW TILL 31.03.2009, WE FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD DR , SUPRA, AND DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, THE CORRESPONDING GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSE E FAIL. 23. ON THE LD ARS SUBMISSION ON THE ISSUE OF UNACC OUNTED INVESTMENTS IN THE HOUSE CONSTRUCTION , SUPRA, THE LD DR SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 PURCHASED A PROPE RTY AT PLOT NO.SA, KSR NAGAR, AMBATTUR, CHENNAI ON 30.09.2008 FOR RS.2 3,17,250/-. THIS FACT HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY AND ALSO IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. IN HIS 'CASH FLOW STATEMEN T' AND THE 'STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS' PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DEPAR TMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE IN THAT PROPERTY FO R RS.12,00,000/- AND HENCE THEASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE DETERMINING THE U NACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS OF THE YEARTREATED SUCH SUM AS AN INVE STMENT MADE DURING THE YEAR. BUT , BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS ERRONEOUSLY MENTIONED IN THE 'CASH FLOW STA TEMENT' AND THE 'STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS' THAT HE HAS SPENT RS.12,00, 000/- FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE IN THAT LAND , THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED AS A VACANT LAND AND IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS IT WAS ALSO SOLD (ON 21.09. 2012) AS A VACANT LAND. THEREFORE, RS.12,00,000/- SHOWN AS CONSTRUCTI ON FOR CONSTRUCTION :-25-: ITA NOS.1024 TO 1028/MDS/2015 OF IS AN ERROR AND HENCE IT MAY KINDLY BE DELETED F ROM THE TOTAL OF THE INVESTMENTS MADE AND RE-COMPUTE THE UNACCOUNTED INV ESTMENTS. THE LD CIT(A) BASED ON THE MATERIAL BEFORE HIM OBSERVED T HAT AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, TH E IMPUGNED PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED ON 30.09.2008 FOR RS.23,17,2 50/-, WAS SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD OUT ON 21.09.2012 FOR A CONSIDERA TION OF RS.45,00,000/-, THE SALE DEED OF THE PROPERTY DATED 21.09.2012 SHOWED THAT THE PROPERTY SOLD WAS A VACANT LAND. THIS FACT GOES TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS NO CONSTRUCTION CARRIED OUT IN THE SAID P ROPERTY. IN SUCH A CASE, THE QUESTION OF INVESTMENTS IN THE FORM OF CO NSTRUCTION OF HOUSE IN THE PROPERTY DOESN'T ARISE. HOWEVER, LD CIT(A) D IRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY AND EXAMINE THIS ISSUE AND IF IT IS FOUND THAT THE SALE WAS ONLY OF THE VACANT LAND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.12,00,000/- CONSIDERED AS AN UNACCO UNTED INVESTMENT IN HOUSE CONSTRUCTION. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE PROPE RTY SOLD INCLUDED ANY BUILDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S INCLUSION OF RS. 12,00,000/- AS THE UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN HOUSE CONSTRUCTION STANDS JUSTIFIED AND CONFIRMED. THEREFORE, THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE OBJECTIONS ON THIS ISSUE. :-26-: ITA NOS.1024 TO 1028/MDS/2015 24. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CONSIDERED T HEM CAREFULLY. WE FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD D R , SUPRA, AND HENCE DISMISS THE CORRESPONDING GROUNDS OF THE ASSE SSEE. 25. ON THE LD ARS PLEA THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING A SUM OF RS.76,008/- OUT OF THE DEPOSITS INTO THE APPELLA NT'S ACCOUNT WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA, THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSEE'S BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED IN THE UNION BANK OF INDIA SHOWE D A TOTAL DEPOSITS OF RS.18,68,916/- DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 . IN THE ABSENCE OF TANGIBLE EXPLANATIONS FROM THE ASSESSE, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER BROUGHT THE TOTAL DEPOSITS OF RS.18,68,916/- TO TAX AS UNA CCOUNTED DEPOSITS INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT. ON ASSESSEES APPEAL , THE LD CI T(A) HELD THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT IS AN ACCOUNTED BANK ACCOUNT AND THE CLOSING BALANCES AS ON 31 ST MARCH OF EVERY YEAR ALSO REFLECTED IN THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE ALL THE DEPOSITS INTO THIS ACCOUNT DURING THE Y EAR AS UNACCOUNTED DEPOSITS. FURTHER, THESE DEPOSITS ARE NOT IN THE FO RM OF CASH. OUT OF THE TOTAL DEPOSITS OF RS.18,68,916/- FOUND DURING THE Y EAR, ONLY RS.5,32,000/- ARE THE CASH DEPOSITS MADE AND THE BA LANCE DEPOSITS OF RS.13,36,916/- ARE THE CHEQUE/DD CLEARANCES ETC. AL L OTHER TRANSACTIONS, I.E. OTHER THAN CASH DEPOSITS/ WITHDRAWALS, ARE VER IFIABLE. HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S ACTION OF BRINGING THE TOTAL (E NTIRE) DEPOSITS OF :-27-: ITA NOS.1024 TO 1028/MDS/2015 RS.18,68,916/- TO TAX IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER ONLY THE PEAK OF THE CREDIT BALANCE OF RS. 5,01,544 (CR) FOUND ON 29.08.2008, AS UNACCOUNTED DEPOSITS INTO THE BAN K ACCOUNT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT. AT THE SAME TIME, IT IS TO BE REMEMBERED THAT, ON THE SAME ASPECT AMOUNTS OF RS.3,07,014/- AND RS. 1,18,522/- (TOTALING TO RS.4,2S,S36/-) HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONSI DERED FOR ASSESSMENT, BEING THE PEAK CREDIT BALANCES IN THE A CCOUNT, IN THE ASSESSMENTS OF A.Y.2005-06 AND 2007-08, RESPECTIVEL Y. HENCE A NECESSARY CREDIT FOR THE SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE GIV EN IN THE PRESENT YEAR WHILE BRINGING THE PEAK CREDIT BALANCE TO TAX OF TH E PRESENT YEAR. SINCE RS.4,25,536/- HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE AS SESSMENTS OF THE EARLIER YEARS (I.E. RS.3,07,014/- IN A.Y.2005-06 AN D RS.1,18,522/- IN A.Y.2007-08), THE ADDITION REQUIRED TO BE MADE IN THE PRESENT A.Y.2009-10 IS ONLY RS.76,008/-- (I.E. RS.5,01,544 - RS.4,25,536). THEREFORE, THE LD CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO CONSI DER ONLY RS.76,008/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE UNACCOUNTED INVE STMENTS, AS AGAINST RS.18,68,916/- CONSIDERED BY THE AO . 26. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CONSIDERED T HEM CAREFULLY. SINCE THE LD CIT(A) HAS ARRIVED THE UNACCOUNTED INV ESTMENTS AT RS. 76,008/-, SUPRA, BASED ON THE PEAK CASH CREDITS ALO NE THAT TOO AFTER GIVING FURTHER TELESCOPING FOR THE ADDITION MADE IN THE EARLIER :-28-: ITA NOS.1024 TO 1028/MDS/2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS , WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION ON THIS ISSUE AND HENCE DISMISS THE CORR ESPONDING GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 27. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IS PARTLY ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 20 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- ( ) (S. JAYARAMAN) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, 0 /DATED: 20 TH DECEMBER, 2019 JPV ($1232 /COPY TO: 1. '/ APPELLANT 2. $%' /RESPONDENT 3. 4 ) (/CIT(A) 4. 4 /CIT 5. 2$ /DR 6. 7 /GF