Shyam Sunder Sharma, Hyd, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Hyderabad

ITA 120/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 66483 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 25-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G V HEMALATHA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Search and seizure; Cost of acquisition; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBE R ITA NO. ASSESSMENT YEAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1 483/HYD/2010 2 008 - 09 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, HYDERABAD. SHRI SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA, HYDERABAD. (PAN ACQPS 2391 J) 118/HYD/2011 119/HYD/2011 120/HYD/2011 121/HYD/2011 122/HYD/2011 123/HYD/2011 2002 - 03 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 S HRI SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA, HYDERABAD. (PAN ACQPS 2391 J) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, HYDERABAD. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI A.SRINIVAS DEPARTMENT BY : SMT. G.V.HEMALATHA, DR DATE OF HEARING 11.10.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27.11.20 12 O R D E R PER BENCH: THERE ARE SEVEN APPEALS IN THIS BUNCH. SIX OF THE M ARE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SEVENTH ONE IS BY THE DEPARTMENT. THEY ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME-TAX(APPEALS) AND THE ASSESSMENT YEARS CONCERNED ARE FROM 2002-03 TO 200 8-09. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED, THESE APPEALS ARE BEING DISPOS ED OFF WITH THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO.1483/HYD/2010 & 118 TO 123/HYD/2011 SHRI SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA, HYDERABAD. 2 REVENUES APPEAL : ITA NO. 1483/HYD/2010 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 2. IN THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) I, HYDERABAD, D ATED 16.9.2010, REVENUE HAS RAISED THREE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEA L, OUT OF WHICH THE FOLLOWING TWO ISSUES ARISE- (I) WHETHER THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT SI NCE THE AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS DATED 12.2.2007, THE QUANTIFI CATION OF ON-MONEY, IF AT ALL, HAS TO BE IN THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2007-08 AND NOT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09? (II) WHETHER THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDI NG THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,77,47,320 IS NOT ASSESSABLE A T THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE? 3. WE WILL FIRST TAKE UP ISSUE NO.2, WHICH GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER, SINCE IT INVOLVES THE VERY ASSESSABILITY OF THE AMOUNT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN I NDIVIDUAL. FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RE TURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.77,501. THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS UNDER S.132 WAS CONDUCTED IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF M/S. DHAT RI CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ON 10.10.2007. IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS, AN AGREEMENT DATED 12.2.2007 FOR SALE OF LANDED PROPER TY SITUATED AT SURVEY NO.129/77 BLOCK K, WARD-12, SYED NAGAR, FIRST LANCE R, SHEIKHPET VILLAGE, HYDERABAD WAS FOUND AND SEIZED. THE SEIZED AGREEME NT REVEALED THAT M/S. SAVI REALTY HOLDINGS P. LTD., A PRIVATE LIMITED COM PANY, WHEREIN THE PRESENT ASSESSEE IS A DIRECTOR ALONGWITH OTHER LAND OWNERS, AGREED TO SELL HIS SHARE OF 468.06 SQ. YARDS TO M/S. DHATRI CONSTRUCTIONS P. LT D. CONSEQUENTIALLY, A SEARCH ACTION WAS ALSO INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESS EE AT HIS RESIDENTIAL ITA NO.1483/HYD/2010 & 118 TO 123/HYD/2011 SHRI SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA, HYDERABAD. 3 PREMISES TO GATHER EVIDENCE REGARDING RECEIPT OF ON -MONEY BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SALE OF THE AFORESAID PROPERTY. AS IT APPEARS FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, STOUTLY DENIED OF HAV ING RECEIVED ANY ON MONEY AND ALSO DISPUTED THE SIGNATURE APPEARING IN THE AGREEMENT SEIZED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION TO BE HIS. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER, ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE GATHERED BY HIM, NOTED THAT M/S. DH ATRI CONSTRUCTIONS P. LTD. INTENDED TO DEVELOP A VENTURE AT SURVEY NO.129/77, SYED NAGAR, FIRST LANCER, SHEIKPET VILLAGE, HYDERABAD. THE TOTAL AR EA OF THE LAND WAS 6204.87 SQ.YARDS. WHICH WAS OWNED BY MORE THAN 10 PERSONS, ONE OF THEM BEING M/S. SAVI REALTY HOLDING P. LTD., WHOSE SHARE WAS 468.06 SQ. YARDS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT AS PER THE AGREEMENT DAT ED 12.2.2007, THE COST OF TOTAL LAND WAS RS.41,25,00,000. IN THE COURSE OF S EARCH OPERATION, A STATEMENT WAS ALSO RECORDED FROM THE MANAGING DIREC TOR OF M/S. DHATRI CONSTRUCTIONS, SHRI M.MANJUNATH REDDY, WHO ADMITTED IN THE STATEMENT THAT THE ENTIRE CONSIDERATION OF RS.41.25 CRORES WAS PA SSED ON TO THE RESPECTIVE LAND OWNER. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONFRONTED T HESE FACTS TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, T HE ASSESSEE DENIED OF HAVING RECEIVED ANY ON-MONEY OR SIGNING ANY AGREEME NT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS HAS BEEN NOTED BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, AFTER EXAMINING THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF M/S. DHATRI CONSTRUCTIONS, FOU ND HUGE AMOUNT OF CASH WITHDRAWAL WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN TOWARDS PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID CONCLUSION, TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,77 ,47,320, AS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, BEING THE REPRE SENTATIVE OF M/S. SAVI REALITY HOLDING P. LTD. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEV ED OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). IN TH E COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE CIT(A), IT WAS SPECIFICALLY ARGUED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS OWNED AND POSSESSED BY M/S . SAVI REALITY HOLDING P. LTD. AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NEVER THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. THE ITA NO.1483/HYD/2010 & 118 TO 123/HYD/2011 SHRI SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA, HYDERABAD. 4 AGREEMENT DATED 12.2.2007 SEIZED AT THE TIME OF SEA RCH ALSO DID NOT BEAR THE SIGNATURE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS MERELY A DIRECTOR IN THE COMPANY, WHICH WAS THE OWNER OF THE LAND. IT WAS F URTHER SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE COMPANY SOLD THE PROPERTY ON 14.9 .2007 BY A REGISTERED SALE DEED TO M/S. DHATRI CONSTRUCTION P. LTD. FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.33,70,000. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THA T SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, NO ADDITION COULD HA VE BEEN AT HIS HANDS. THE CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE, AND EXAMINING THE AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 12.2.2007 SEI ZED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH OPERATION AND THE SALE DEED DATED 14.9.2007 FOUND THAT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WHO SOLD TO M/S. DHATRI CONSTRUCTIONS P. LTD. WAS M/S. SAVI REALITY HOLDING P. LTD. AND THE ASSESSEE ONLY REPRE SENTED THE COMPANY BEING A DIRECTOR. THE CIT(A) THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE COM PANY BEING A SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITY, THE PAYMENT OF ON-MONEY, IF ANY, RECE IVED, AS A RESULT OF THE SALE TRANSACTION SHOULD BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE COMPANY, M/S. SAVI REALITY HOLDING P. LTD. AND NOT IN THE HAND OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THE AFORESAID CONCLUSION, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITT ED BEFORE US THAT WHEN THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S. DHATRI CONS TRUCTIONS P. LTD., IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATIO NS, ADMITTED OF HAVING PAID AN AMOUNT OF RS.41.25 CRORES, THE CIT(A) WAS N OT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,77,47,320. THE LEARNED DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE STATEMENT OF THE MANAGING DIRECT OR OF M/S. DHATRI CONSTRUCTIONS IS FULLY CORROBORATED BY THE SALE AGR EEMENT SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE FACT THAT THE TOTAL LAND WAS SOLD FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.41.25 CRORES. ITA NO.1483/HYD/2010 & 118 TO 123/HYD/2011 SHRI SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA, HYDERABAD. 5 7. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE CONTRARY, SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THAT THE AGREEMENT TO SELL FOUND AND SEIZED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH OPERATION, WAS NOT SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSES SEE, REFERRING TO THE AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 12.2.2007 AND SALE DEED DAT ED 14.9.2007, SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THESE DOCUMENTS CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE LAND WAS SOLD TO M/S. DHATRI CONSTRUCTIONS P. LTD. BY M/S. SAVI REALTY H OLDING P. LTD., AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY REPRESENTING THE COMPANY AS ITS D IRECTOR. THEREFORE, AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE CIT(A), THE PAYMENT OF ON-MONEY , IF ANY, CANNOT BE TAXED AT THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE THAT AN AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 12.2.2007 WAS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS, WHICH REVEALED SALE OF LAND TO BE MADE BY DIFFERENT PERSO NS TO M/S. DHATRI CONSTRUCTIONS P. LTD. FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.41. 25 CRORES. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S. DHATRI CONSTRUCTIONS, SHRI M.MANJU NATH REDDY, IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATIO N ALSO ADMITTED OF HAVING PAID RS.41.25 CRORES TO DIFFERENT PERSONS, TOWARDS PURCHASE OF THE LAND IN QUESTION. HOWEVER, FROM THE AGREEMENT TO SELL DAT ED 12.2.2007 WHICH IS AT PAGE 10 OF THE PAPER-BOOK FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 14.9.2007, IT IS CLEARLY EVIDENT THAT T HE LAND IN SURVEY NO.129/77, SYED NAGAR, FIRST LANCER, HYDERABAD, WAS OWNED BY M/S. SAVI REALTY HOLDING P.LTD. AND THE ASSESSEE WAS MERELY REPRESENTING THE AFORESAID COMPANY AS ITS DIRECTOR WHILE EXECUTING T HE DOCUMENT, VIZ. THE SALE DEED. IN THE AFORESAID CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THEREFORE, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY BEING THE COMPANY, A SEPARATE LEGAL EN TITY, ANY ADDITION IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, C AN ONLY BE CONSIDERED AT THE HANDS FO THE COMPANY AND NOT AT THE HANDS OF THE AS SESSEE, WHO IS ITA NO.1483/HYD/2010 & 118 TO 123/HYD/2011 SHRI SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA, HYDERABAD. 6 REPRESENTING THE COMPANY AS A DIRECTOR. IN FACT, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HAS OBSERVED THA T THE LAND BELONGED TO M/S. SAVI REALTY HOLDING P. LTD., AND THE ASSESSEE IS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SAID COMPANY. IN THE AFORESAID CIRCUMSTANCES, WE A RE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE E. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS I SSUE, AND REJECT THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN THIS BEHALF. 9. AS FOR THE OTHER ISSUE RELATING TO THE YEAR IN WHICH THE DISPUTED ADDITION IS ASSESSABLE, WE FIND THAT IN VIEW OF OUR FINDING ON ISSUE NO.2 RELATING TO THE VERY ASSESSABILITY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH HAS GONE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, ADJUDICATION ON TH IS ISSUE HAS BECOME MERELY ACADEMIC. HENCE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO GO INTO THE SAME. CONSEQUENTLY, REVENUES GROUNDS IN RELATION TO THIS ISSUE ARE ALS O LIABLE TO BE REJECTED. WE DO SO ACCORDINGLY. 10. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2008-09, VIZ. ITA NO.1483/HYD/2010 IS DISMISSED.. ASSESSEES APPEALS: ITA NO.118/HYD/2011 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 ITA NO.119/HYD/2011 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ITA NO.120/HYD/2011 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ITA NO.121/HYD/2011 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ITA NO.123/HYD/2011 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 11. THE FIRST ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE APPEALS FOR A LL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS, EXCEPTING 2003-04, RELATES TO CASH CREDIT AD DITIONS UNDER S.68 OF THE ACT. THE AMOUNTS OF DISPUTED ADDITION ARE AS FOLLO WS- ASSESSMENT YEAR AMOUNT OF ADDITION 2002-03 RS. 52,000 2004-05 RS. 2,31,000 2005-06 RS.16,89,000 2007-08 RS. 1,24,000 ITA NO.1483/HYD/2010 & 118 TO 123/HYD/2011 SHRI SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA, HYDERABAD. 7 12. BRIEFLY STATED, FACTS OF THE CASE IN RELATION TO THIS ISSUE ARE THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2002-03 THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REC EIVED CASH LOANS AGGREGATING TO RS.71,000 FROM FOUR PERSONS. THE AS SESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR THE RELEVANT INFORMATION FROM THE ASSESSEE WITH REG ARD TO THESE CASH LOANS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED SOME CONFIRMATION LETTERS, W HICH ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DID NOT REVEAL THE PAN NO. OF TH E PERSONS, THE SOURCE FOR FINANCING TO THE ASSESSEE, AND THE GENUINENESS OF T HE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE FURTHER QUERIES TO THE ASSES SEE TO FURNISH ALL THE DETAILS AS ENUMERATED IN THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE. SI NCE SUMMONS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE CONCERNED CREDITORS WE RE UNSERVED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE CREDITORS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE NEITHER PRODUCED THE LOAN CREDITORS, NOR F URNISHED THE DETAILS ASKED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.71,000, BY TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER S.68 OF T HE ACT. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ADDITION, FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ONE OF THE LENDERS WAS ASSESSEES OWN WIFE, SMT. SUVARNA SHARMA, (WHO LENT AN AMOUNT OF RS.19,000), WHO WAS AN ASSESSEE WITH THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT. HE R PAN NO. WAS ALSO FURNISHED BEFORE THE CIT(A). IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE AFORESAID LOAN TRANSACTION WAS DULY REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET ACCOMPANYING THE RETURN FILED BY HER. THE CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SU BMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, ACCEPTED ONLY THE LOAN OF RS.19,000 BY SMT.SUVARNA SARMA, SINCE IT STOOD EXPLAINED IN HER BALANCE SHEET FILED ALONGWITH THE RETURN, AND CONFIRMED THE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS.52,000, AS NO EVIDENCE WAS P RODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE ALLEGED CREDITORS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. ITA NO.1483/HYD/2010 & 118 TO 123/HYD/2011 SHRI SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA, HYDERABAD. 8 13. SIMILARLY, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, ASSESS EE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED CASH LOANS AGGREGATING TO RS.2,31,000 FROM THE FOLLOWING FOUR PERSONS- (A) SHRI M.HARI BABU RS.80,000 (B) SHRI HUMAYUN RS.81,000 (C) SHRI NARENDRA SHARMA RS.35,000 (D) SHRI KHASIM RS.35,000 14. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASKED FOR THE DETAILS O F THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE, APART FROM SUBMITTING SOME VAGUE CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM THE CONCERNED CREDITORS, DID NOT FURNI SH ANY OTHER DETAILS. EVEN IN SPITE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SPECIFICALLY ASKING FOR THE PRODUCTION OF THE ALLEGED LOAN CREDITORS, THEY WERE NOT PRODUCED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, FROM THE RELEVANT CONFIRMATION LETTER, FOUND THAT SHRI M .HARI BABU IS AN EMPLOYEE WITH A.P. TRANSCO AS A JUNIOR PERSONNEL OFFICER, WI TH A MONTHLY SALARY OF RS.20,000. THOUGH HE STATED TO HAVE ADVANCED THE AM OUNT IN QUESTION FROM HIS SAVINGS, NEITHER COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT, NOR HIS SALARY STATEMENT WAS PRODUCED. SHRI HUMAYUN, IN HIS CONFIRMATION LETTER STATED THAT THOUGH HE WAS WORKING AS AN EMPLOYEE OF M/S. SHYAM, SHARMA AN D CO., BUT HIS PARENTS WERE SUPPORTING HIM, HE HAD NOT DRAWN ANY SALARY DU RING THE YEAR 2003-04, AND THE LOAN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE WAS OUT OF THE A CCUMULATED AMOUNTS OF SALARY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, FINDING THE EXPLANA TION OF THE ALLEGED CREDITOR TO BE NOT CORRECT, DISBELIEVED HIS CLAIM OF HAVING LENT THE AMOUNT FO RS.81,000 TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE OF SHRI NA RENDRA SHARMA, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND FROM THE CONFIRMATION LETTE R THAT IT WAS STATED THAT HE HAD ADVANCED A SUM OF RS.18,000 ON 4.4.2003 AND A S UM OF RS.17,000 ON 13.6.2003 TO THE ASSESSEE, WHO HAPPENS TO BE HIS CO USIN BROTHER. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE SAID LOAN WAS GIVEN DURING THIS VIS IT TO HYDERABAD, AND IT WAS OUT OF HIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF HIS CLAIM ISSUED SUMMONS TO SHRI NAR ENDRA SHARMA. HOWEVER, THE SUMMONS WAS RETURNED UNSERVED. THE ASS ESSEE ALSO FAILED TO ITA NO.1483/HYD/2010 & 118 TO 123/HYD/2011 SHRI SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA, HYDERABAD. 9 PRODUCE SHRI NAREENDRA SHARMA, NOTWITHSTANDING THE REQUISITION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THAT BEHALF. THE ASSESSING OF FICER, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CREDI TWORTHINESS OF SHRI NARENDRA SHARMA, AS WELL AS THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS OF LENDING, IN THE CASE OF SHRI KHASIM, THE ASSESSING OFFICER F OUND FROM THE CONFIRMATION LETTER THAT HE HAS STATED TO HAVE ADVANCED AN AMOUN T OF RS.17,000 AND RS.18,000 ON 15.5.2003 AND 29.5.2003 RESPECTIVELY. IT WAS STATED THAT HE WAS EMPLOYED IN SAUDI ARABIA FOR MORE THAN A DECADE AND THE LOAN WAS GIVEN FROM HIS SAVING. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF HIS CLAIM ISSUED SUMMONS TO SHRI KHASIM. HOWEVER, THE SUMMON S WAS RETURNED UNSERVED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO PRODUCE SHRI KHASIM, NOTWITHSTANDING THE REQUISITION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THAT BE HALF. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FA ILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF SHRI KHASIM, AS WELL AS THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION OF LENDING. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCO RDINGLY, ADDED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.2,31,000 UNDER S.68 OF THE ACT. 15. AGGRIEVED BY THE ADDITION OF RS.2,31,000, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A), HOWEVER, SUS TAINED THE ADDITION, SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF TH E TRANSACTIONS AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS, EVEN BEFORE HIM. 16. SIMILARLY, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, ASSES SEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED UNSECURED LOANS AGGREGATING TO RS.16,89,00 0. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH DETAILS WITH REGARD TO UNSECURED LOANS, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH DETAILS AS CALLED FO R BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ONLY CONFIRMATION LETTERS WERE PRODUCED BY THE ASSE SSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON EXAMINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOUND THA T THE LOANS WERE INTRODUCED IN THE FAG END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR, I. E. BETWEEN JANUARY TO ITA NO.1483/HYD/2010 & 118 TO 123/HYD/2011 SHRI SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA, HYDERABAD. 10 FEBRUARY 2005 AND IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT THE LOANS WERE SPENT SUBSEQUENTLY FOR VARIOUS INVESTMENTS. IT WAS FURTHER NOTICED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR HA S PAID HUGE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AS WELL AS CERTAIN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, WHEREAS HIS TAXABLE INCOME DURING THE YEA R WAS ONLY RS.2,34,414. 17. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO EXAMINE TH E DETAILS AVAILABLE IN RESPECT OF LOANS SHOWN AGAINST EACH OF THE INDIV IDUAL CREDITORS. WHILE EXAMINING THE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF LOAN OF RS.19,0 00 IN THE CASE OF DR.S.M.IQBAL, HE FOUND NO CONFIRMATION LETTER WAS FILED. IN THE CASES OF SHRI ANIL KUMAR SHARMA (LOAN OF RS.12,000), SHRI DILIP K UMAR SHARMA (LOAN OF RS.6,000), SHRI SUGUN CHAND SHARMA(LOAN OF RS.38,00 0) AND SHRI NARENDRA SHARMA (LOAN OF RS.38,000), THE ASSESSING OFFICER F OUND FROM THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS FILED THAT ALL OF THEM WERE R ESIDENTS OF VILLAGE PALI, DIST. MAHENDRAGADH, HARYANA, AND ALL OF THEM STATED TO HA VE GIVEN THE LOANS OUT OF THEIR AGRICULTURAL INCOME, WHEN THEY VISITED THE ASSESSEE AT HYDERABAD. HOWEVER, WHEN SUMMONS WERE ISSUED, ALL THE SUMMONS WERE RETURNED UNSERVED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO PRODUCE THE CONCERNED LOAN CREDITORS, EVEN THOUGH HE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TO PRODUCE THEM. SINCE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF T HE CREDITORS, AS WELL AS THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE WITH REGARD TO UNSECURED LOANS GIVEN BY THESE CREDITORS. IN THE C ASE OF SHRI RAVI KUMAR, WHO IS STATED TO HAVE GIVEN A LOAN OF RS. 38,000, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE SAID PERSON WAS NOT HAVING ENOUGH INCOME T O ADVANCE THE AMOUNT OF RS.38,000, SHOWN AGAINST HIM, TO THE ASSESSEE. HE THEREFORE, ISSUED SUMMONS TO SHRI RAVI KUMAR FOR FINDING THE GENUINEN ESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION. HOWEVER, THE SUMMONS WAS RETURNED UNSE RVED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO PRODUCE THE SAID LOAN CREDITOR, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSING ITA NO.1483/HYD/2010 & 118 TO 123/HYD/2011 SHRI SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA, HYDERABAD. 11 OFFICER ASKED HIM TO DO SO. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAMAKRISHNA, WHO IS CLAIMED TO HAVE GIVEN A LOAN OF RS.38,000, THE SUMM ONS ISSUED WERE RETURNED UNSERVED AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO P RODUCE HIM BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE CASE OF SHRI KHASIM, WHO IS CLAIMED TO HAVE GIVEN A LOAN OF RS.19,000, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE CASE OF SIMILAR LOAN FROM HIM IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR, TREATED THE LOAN FROM HIM AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. IN THE CASE OF SHRI B.DAYANAND, WHO IS STATED TO HAVE ADVANCED AN AMOUNT OF RS.2 LAKHS, TH E SUMMONS ISSUED WAS RETURNED UNSERVED AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO DID NOT PRO DUCE HIM, IN SPITE OF REQUEST BEING MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROD UCE. IN THE CASE OF SHRI B.RAJAMANI, AND SMT. UJJWALA JAIN, WHO ARE STATED T O HAVE ADVANCED RS.3 LAKHS EACH TO THE ASSESSEE, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ISSUED SUMMONS, THE SAME WERE RECEIVED UNSERVED, AND THE ASSESSEE TOO F AILED TO PRODUCE THEM DESPITE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DO SO. IN THE CASE OF SHRI VINAY KUMAR GOYAL, WHO IS CLAIMED TO HAVE ADVANCED AN AMO UNT OF RS.2 LAKHS TO THE ASSESSEE, IN SPITE OF SUMMON, THERE WAS NO APPE ARANCE FROM HIM, AND THE ASSESSEE TOO FAILED TO PRODUCE HIM. IN THE CAS E OF SHRI VITTAL RAO, WHO IS STATED TO HAVE ADVANCED RS.5 LAKHS, SUMMONS ISSUED WERE RETURNED UNSERVED AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO PRODUCE TH E CREDITOR. 18. FROM THE AFORESAID FACTUAL MATRIX, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER FOUND CERTAIN STRIKING SIMILARITIES, LIKE (I) ALL THE LOA NS WERE INTRODUCED IN THE MONTH OF JANUARY/FEBRUARY, 2005; (II) NONE OF THE CREDITO RS HAD EARNED SUFFICIENT INCOME IN THE EARLIER YEARS; (III) THE AMOUNTS WERE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON A SINGLE DAY AND IMMEDIATELY TRANSFERRED TO THE ASSESSEE AS UNSECURED LOANS; (IV) SUMMONS ISSUED WERE RETURNED UNSERVED; (V) ALL THE CREDITORS BANK ACCOUNT DID NOT HAVE ANY OTHER CASH CREDITS IN SUCH A HUGE VOLUME; (VI) IN SPITE BEING SPECIFICALLY ASKED, TH E ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY OF THE CREDITORS FOR EXAMINATION BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. ON THE ITA NO.1483/HYD/2010 & 118 TO 123/HYD/2011 SHRI SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA, HYDERABAD. 12 BASIS OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE BASIC RE QUIREMENT OF ESTABLISHING THE IDENTITY AND CREDIT-WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS, THE UNSECURED LOANS AGGREGATIN G TO RS. 16,89,000 HAS TO BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS UNDER S.68 O F THE ACT. HE ACCORDINGLY MADE THE SAID ADDITION OF RS.16,89,000. 19. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE SAID ADDIT ION OF RS.16,89,000, FINDING THE REASONING SHOWN BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO BE JUST AND PROPER. THE CIT(A) FURTHER NOTED THAT EVEN DUR ING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE G ENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS. 20. AS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING UNSEC URED LOANS DURING THE YEAR- (A) SHRI DILIP KUMAR SHARMA RS.19,500 (B) SHRI RAVI KUMAR RS.19,000 (C) SHRI SUGUN CHAND SAHRMA RS.20,000 (D) SHRI NARENDRA SHARMA RS.19,000 (E) SHRI P.VENAKTESH RS.27,500 (F) SHRI HARI BABU RS.19,000 SO FAR AS THE FIRST FOUR LOAN CREDITORS ARE CONCERN ED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS FOR THE DETAILED R EASONS DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. SO FAR AS SHRI P.VENKATESH IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND FROM THE CONFIRMATION LETTE R THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.15,000 AND RS.12,500 WERE STATED TO HAVE BEEN GI VEN TO THE ASSESSEE ON 28.9.2006 AND 30.9.2006 RESPECTIVELY. IT WAS STATE D BY THE SAID CREDITOR IN THE CONFIRMATION LETTER THAT HE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF SSK ELECTRONICS AND SYTEMS P. LTD. AND HIS INCOME FOR THE FINANCIAL YEA R 2006-07 WAS RS.1 LAKH FROM THE ABOVE FACTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT IT IS ITA NO.1483/HYD/2010 & 118 TO 123/HYD/2011 SHRI SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA, HYDERABAD. 13 DIFFICULT FOR A PERSON WITH SUCH SMALL AMOUNT OF IN COME TO HAVE DECENT LIVING. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT NEITHER AN Y SALARY CERTIFICATE, INCOME-TAX RETURN OR BANK ACCOUNT COPY OF THE SAID CREDITOR WAS SUBMITTED. ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID FACT, THE ASSESSING O FFICER CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE SAID CREDITOR NEITHER HAS THE SOURCE OF IN COME OR CREDITWORTHINESS TO ADVANCE THE LOAN SHOWN AGAINST HIM TO THE ASSESSEE. HE ACCORDINGLY TREATED IT AS THE ASSESSEES UNEXPLAINED INCOME. SO FAR AS SHRI HARI BABU IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE LOAN TRANSACTION, SINCE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE PAN, ASSESSMENT DETAILS, AND BANK ACCOUNT DETAILS WERE NOT FURNISHED IN THE CONFIRMATION LETTER. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY DISBELIEVED THE ENTIRE UNSECURED LOANS CLAIMED OF RS.1,24,000, AND MADE ADDITION UNDER S.68 OF THE ACT IN THAT BEH ALF. 21. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ADDITION, ASSESSEE PREFE RRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), WHO TOO CONFIRMED THE SAME, BEING IN AG REEMENT WITH THE REASONS DISCUSSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 22. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, ARGUING IN COMMON FOR THE ADDITIONS UNDER S.68 OF THE ACT M ADE FOR ALL THESE YEARS, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE REQUI SITE CONFIRMATION LETTERS, WHICH REVEALED ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS. THE ADDI TIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE BASED ON GENERAL AND COMMON OBSERVATION S IN RESPECT OF ALL THE CREDITS, AND WITHOUT PROPER EXAMINATION OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DONE ALL THAT HE COULD DO, TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINE NESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. HE THEREFORE, PLEADED THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS M ADE FOR THESE YEARS SHOULD BE DELETED, ACCEPTING THE GENUINENESS OF THE UNSECURED LOANS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.1483/HYD/2010 & 118 TO 123/HYD/2011 SHRI SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA, HYDERABAD. 14 23. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON TH E OTHER HAND, SUPPORTING THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACT IONS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS SUBMI TTED THAT THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN RIGHTLY MADE AND HENCE, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFI ED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. 24. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACTS ON RECORD THAT APART FROM FURNISHING THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM THE ALLEGED CREDITORS , THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY OTHER DETAILS AS REQUIRED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER. IT IS ALSO EVIDENT FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY INDULGING IN REFLECTING UNSECURED LOANS YEAR AFTER YEAR, WITH TH E NAMES OF SOME OF THE PERSONS REPEATING TIME AND AGAIN. NOTWITHSTANDING THIS POSITION, ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE EVEN A SINGLE CREDITOR FOR EX AMINATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AND THE SUMMONS ISSUED ON THE GI VEN ADDRESSES OF THE CONCERNED CREDITORS, WERE RETURNED UNSERVED IN ALMO ST ALL THE CASES, WHICH RAISES A GENUINE DOUBT ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DETAILS FURNISHED IN THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS. IT IS A SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH NOT ONLY THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR, BUT ALSO HIS CREDITWORTHINESS, BESIDES GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSA CTIONS. IT IS ONLY IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES WIFE, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 02-03, THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD ESTABLISH ALL THE THREE INGREDIENTS OF ESTABL ISHING CASH CREDITS. IN RESPECT OF ALMOST ALL THE OTHER UNSECURED LOAN TRAN SACTIONS, EVEN THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED, MUCH LES S THEIR CREDIT-WORTHINESS OR THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. FROM THE FACTS NARRATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, I T IS SEEN THAT ON THE VERY DAY THE CASH WAS INTRODUCED INTO THE BANK ACCO UNT OF THE CONCERNED CREDITOR, CHEQUE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS UNSECURED LOANS. THE ITA NO.1483/HYD/2010 & 118 TO 123/HYD/2011 SHRI SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA, HYDERABAD. 15 ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE CR EDITORS, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS NOT ONLY BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT ALSO BEFORE THE CIT(A), IN SPITE OF AVAILING SU FFICIENT OPPORTUNITY. THIS PROVES THE FACT THAT THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT GENUINE. IN THE AFORESAID CIRCUMSTANCES, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISC HARGE THE ONUS CAST UPON HIM, IN PROVING THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSAC TIONS, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE C IT(A). WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE CIT(A), AND REJECT THE G ROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE IN THE APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 -03, 2004-05, 2005-06 AND 2007-08. 25. THE NEXT COMMON ISSUE IN THE APPEALS OF THE AS SESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 TO 2005-06 IS WITH REGARD T O THE ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 26. IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FO R THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND FROM THE CAPITAL ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN WITHDRAWALS OF RS.36,000 ONLY FOR EACH OF THESE YEARS . THE ASSESSEE BEING A CHARTERED AC COUNTANT AND ALSO CARRYING ON HIS PROCESSIONAL ACTIVITY UNDER THE PRO PRIETARY CONCERN IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. SHYAM SHARMA AND CO., THE AS SESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE DRAWINGS TO BE VERY MEAGER. HE THER EFORE, ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS EXPLANATI ON SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEES FATHER ALSO CONTRIBUTES TOWARDS MEETING THE OVERALL EXPENDITURE, THE WITHDRAWALS MADE ARE SUFFICIENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE NOT ACCEPTABLE SI NCE THE ASSESSEES FATHER IS AN OLD MAN OF ABOUT 75 YEARS, HAVING INCOME BELO W TAXABLE LIMIT. THEREFORE, THE INCOME OF THE FATHER CANNOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ENTIRE FAMILY. EVEN TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FATHER S INCOME ALSO, THE ASSESSING ITA NO.1483/HYD/2010 & 118 TO 123/HYD/2011 SHRI SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA, HYDERABAD. 16 OFFICER NOTED, THE TOTAL MONEY AVAILABLE TO MEET THE EXPENDITURE WOULD BE AROUND RS.86,000 PER ANNUM, WHICH CANNOT BE SUFFICI ENT TO MAINTAIN A FAMILY OF FIVE PERSONS, WITH MINIMUM STANDARD OF LIFE. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE, MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1,00,000, FOR EAC H OF THE FOUR YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER S OURCES . 27. ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ABOVE ADDITIONS MADE T OWARDS LOW DRAWALS, BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A), CONSIDERI NG THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS STAYING IN A JOINT FAMILY AND IN THEIR OWN HOUSE, FOUND THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE ON HI GHER SIDE. HE ACCORDINGLY SUSTAINED ADDITIONS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.25,000 ONLY FOR EACH OF THE FOUR YEARS. 28. STILL AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE SECOND APPEALS BEFORE US ON THIS ISSUE. 29. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. C ONSIDERING THE STANDARD OF LIFE EXPECTED OF A PROFESSIONAL OF HIS STATURE, THE DRAWALS OF RS.36,000 PER ANNUM IS CERTAINLY TOO MEAGER. IN OUR VIEW, THE CI T(A) HAS TAKEN A VERY LIBERAL APPROACH IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO RS. 25,000 PER ANNUM ONLY. THAT BEING SO, WE DO NOT FIND ANY FURTHER JUSTIFICA TION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A), ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE, IN EACH OF THESE APPEALS ARE REJECTED. 30. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2005-06 AND 2007-08, BEING ITA NOS . 118 TO 121/HYD/2011 AND 123/HYD/2011 ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO.1483/HYD/2010 & 118 TO 123/HYD/2011 SHRI SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA, HYDERABAD. 17 ITA NO.122/HYD/2011 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 31. IN THIS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, TH E ONLY ISSUE ARISING FOR CONSIDERATION IS WITH REGARD TO COMPUTA TION OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS, AND THE SPECIFIC DISPUTE RELATES TO DISALLOW ANCE OF CLAIM OF COST OF ACQUISITION ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON L EVELLING AND OTHER INCIDENTAL WORKS. 32. FROM THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HA S SOLD TWO DIFFERENT IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES AND HAS OFFERED SHORT TERM CAP ITAL GAINS FOR TAXATION. SO FAR AS THE PROPERTY ADMEASURING 331.38 SQ. YARDS SITUATED AT DOOR NO.10- 5-385/35A IN SURVEY NO.129/77, T.S.NO.26 BLOCK K, W ARD NO.12, FIRST LANCER, SYED NAGAR, HYDERABAD, IT WAS SOLD FOR A CO NSIDERATION OF RS.23,66,000 VIDE SALE DEED NO.979/2006 DATED 1.3.2 006. IN THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS, THE ASSESSEE ADOPTED COST OF ACQUISITION AT RS.10,96,000. HOWEVER, FROM THE DEED OF PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCH ASED THE PROPERTY ON 18.10.2004 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.5 LAKHS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE, ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE INFLAT ION IN COST OF ACQUISITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5,96,000. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID N OT FURNISH ANY EXPLANATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED BACK THE A MOUNT OF RS.5,96,000, WHILE COMPUTING THE SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAINS. IN S O FAR AS THE OTHER PROPERTY, ADMEASURING 350 SQ. YARDS AT DOOR NO.10-5-385/55E, IN SURVEY NO.129/77, T.S.NO.26 BLOCK K, WARD NO.12, FIRST LANCER, SYED N AGAR, HYDERABAD, IT WAS SOLD FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.24,96,000 VIDE SALE DEED NO.978/2006 DATED 1.3.2006. IN RESPECT OF SALE OF THIS PROPERTY, THE ASSESSEE ADOPTED THE COST OF ACQUISITION AT RS.9,55,680, AS AGAINST PURCHASE PRICE OF RS.4,00,000 AS PER PURCHASE DEED DATED 23.10.2004. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER THEREFORE, ASKED ITA NO.1483/HYD/2010 & 118 TO 123/HYD/2011 SHRI SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA, HYDERABAD. 18 THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.5,55,6 80 IN THE COST OF ACQUISITION. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH AN Y EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE DIFFERENCE, THE AMOUNT OF RS.5,55,680 WAS RE DUCED FROM THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THIS PROPERTY WHILE COMPUTING THE CA PITAL GAINS. 33. THE ASSESSEE, BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ADJUSTMENTS IN THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS IN RESPECT OF THE SALE OF THE ABOVE TWO PROPERTIES, PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). IN THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINING THE DIFF ERENCE POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED THAT SO FAR AS THE FIRS T PROPERTY IS CONCERNED, THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF RS.5,96,000 COMPRISED OF THE FOLLOWING EXPENDITURE- (A) STAMP DUTY FOR REGISTRATION OF AGREEMENT OF SALE-CUM-GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY AND OTHER INCIDENTAL EXPENDITURE RS. 81,610 (B) PAYMENT MADE TOWARDS SETTLEMENT OF ISSUES WITH URBAN LAND CEILING AUTHORITY AND FOR ALLOTMENT OF THE LAND RS.3,45,000 (C) EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON LEVELING AND OTHER INCIDENTAL WORKS RS.1,69,390 34. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF THE SECOND PROPERTY, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.5,55,680 IN THE FOL LOWING MANNER- (A) STAMP DUTY FOR REGISTRATION OF AGREEMENT OF SALE-CUM-GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY AND OTHER INCIDENTAL EXPENDITURE RS. 83,890 (B) PAYMENT MADE TOWARDS SETTLEMENT OF ISSUES WITH URBAN LAND CEILING AUTHORITY AND FOR ALLOTMENT OF THE LAND RS.2,90,400 (C) EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON LEVELING AND OTHER INCIDENTAL WORKS RS.1,81,390 ITA NO.1483/HYD/2010 & 118 TO 123/HYD/2011 SHRI SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA, HYDERABAD. 19 35. THE CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE PROPERTIES, DIRECTED THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE FIRST TWO ITEMS AGAINST (A) AND (B) ABOVE IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE PROPERTIES, AND CON SIDER THEM AS PART OF COST OF ACQUISITION IF THE AMOUNTS HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN PA ID BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED THEREIN. HOWEVER, SO FAR AS THE T HIRD ITEM, I.E. EXPENDITURE TOWARDS LEVELING AND OTHER INCIDENTAL W ORKS OF RS.1,69,390 IN THE CASE OF FIRST PROPERTY AND RS.1,81,390 IN THE CASE OF SECOND PROPERTY, THE CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT NO DETAILS WITH REGARD TO INCURRING OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE, WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE DISALLOWANCE THUS SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 36. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF THE EXPENDITURE ON LEVELING AND OTHER INCIDENTAL WORKS, EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE POSITI ON CONTINUES TO BE THE SAME EVEN BEFORE US. WHEN A CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE SUCH CLAIM MADE, BY FURNISHING THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH EVIDEN CE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, DESPITE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES GRANTED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE CIT(A) IS QUITE REASON ABLE, AND WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH HIS ORDER ON THIS I SSUE. WE ACCORDINGLY FIND NO MERIT IN THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL , WHICH ARE ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 37 IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL, ITA NO.122/HY D/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.1483/HYD/2010 & 118 TO 123/HYD/2011 SHRI SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA, HYDERABAD. 20 38 TO SUM UP, THE LONE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WE LL AS ALL THE SIX APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 27.11.2012 SD/- SD/- ( SANJAY ARORA ) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED/- 27 TH NOVEMBER, 2012 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA, C/O. R.B.KABRA & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 1-917 TILAK ROAD, HYDERABAD 500 001. 2. 3. 4. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, HYDERABAD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-I, HYDERABAD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CENTRAL , HYDERABAD 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S.