P.Kunhiraman Nair, Kannur V. DCIT, Trichur

ITA 151/COCH/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4482 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 25-02-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S R SENAPATI
• Assessee Lawyers: T M SREEDHARAN ADV
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 151/COCH/2011 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL COCHIN BEN CH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI N.VIJAYAKUMARAN, JM AND SANJAY AR ORA, AM I.T.A. NO. 151/COCH/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 SHRI P. KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, RAMANILAYAM, TRICHAMBARAM, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR. [PAN:AABPN 7035R] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, CALICUT. (ASSESSEE-APPELLANT) (REVENUE -RESPONDEN T) ASSESSEE BY SHRI T.M.SREEDHARAN, ADV.-AR REVENUE BY SHRI S.R.SENAPATI, SR. DR O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDE R BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, KOCHI (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 03.11.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2005-06, CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 1 43(3) R/W S. 153C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT' HEREINAFTER) DATED 30.11.2009. 2. THE APPEAL RAISES TWO ISSUES, PER SEVEN GROUNDS, WHICH WE SHALL TAKE UP IN SERIATIM. GROUND NOS. 3 TO 5; GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 BE ING GENERAL IN NATURE, WARRANTING NO ADJUDICATION, ARE IN RESPECT OF CONFIRMATION OF THE ADDITION IN THE SUM OF ` 5 LAKHS TO THE ASSESSEES RETURNED BUSINESS/PROFESSIONAL INCOME OF ` 2.40 LAKHS. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT A SEARCH AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE AS SESSEE ON 14.6.2007 REVEALED DEPOSIT IN THREE BANK ACCOUNTS WITH ALLAHABAD BANK, BANDRA BRA NCH, MUMBAI, WHICH WERE SEIZED. A TOTAL OF ` 8 LAKHS STOOD DEPOSITED THEREIN, IN CASH, ON 16.11. 2004 . WHILE THE TWO BANK ACCOUNTS, IN WHICH ` 3 LAKHS AND ` 2 LAKHS, I.E., A TOTAL OF ` 5 LAKHS, STOOD DEPOSITED, WERE IN THE JOINT NAMES OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE, THE T HIRD, BEARING A DEPOSIT OF ` 3 LAKHS, WAS I.T.A. NO. 151/COCH/2011 2 IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEES DAUGHTER, PRAMILA GOP I AND HER HUSBAND, SHRI E.K.GOPI. THE ASSESSEE, ON BEING EXAMINED ON OATH U/S. 131 ON 25.7.2007 IN RESPECT OF THREE CASH TRANSACTIONS (DEPOSITS), EXPLAINED THAT THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED WAS OUT OF THE RECEIPT FROM VARIOUS COMPANIES/FIRMS HE WORKED FOR AFTER HIS RET IREMENT FROM M/S. VOLTAS LTD. IN 1998. THAT THE REMUNERATION WAS IN CASH AND HAD NOT BEEN DISCLOSED FOR TAX PURPOSES. THE SAME WAS IN RESPECT OF THE CONSULTANCY WORK REN DERED DURING THE PERIOD 2000-2002; HOWEVER, AS THE FIRMS WERE NOT IN A POSITION TO PAY REGULARLY, HE GOT THE AMOUNT/S ONLY IN NOVEMBER, 2004. SOME PORTION OF THE SAME MAY BE OU T OF THE MATURITY PROCEEDS OF FIXED DEPOSITS, FOR WHICH HE WOULD HAVE TO VERIFY HIS REC ORDS HE AGREED TO PAY TAX ON THE UNDISCLOSED AMOUNT (IN ANSWER TO QUESTION NO. 2). HOWEVER, AS THE ASSESSEE OFFERED TO TAX ONLY ` 3 LAKHS DEPOSITED IN ONE JOINT ACCOUNT WITH HIS WIF E, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) BROUGHT THE BALANCE ` 5 LAKHS TO TAX. THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION QUA THE DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF HIS DAUGHTER AND SON-IN-LAW, AS REPRESENTING HER PROPERTY, WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY HIM IN VIEW OF THE ADMITTED FACTUAL POS ITION DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, TO NO EFFECTIVE REBUTTAL, WHILE THERE WAS NO EXPLANATI ON QUA THE SECOND JOINT BANK ACCOUNT WITH WIFE. THE SAME STOOD CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IN APPEAL. THE DEPOSIT OF ` 2 LAKHS IN THE SECOND JOINT ACCOUNT WITH WIFE, SMT. JAYA NA IR, COULD NOT BE EXCLUDED AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT COME OUT WITH ANY OSTENSIBLE SOURC E OF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF HIS WIFE. AS REGARDS THE BANK ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF HIS DAUG HTER AND SON-IN-LAW, WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS AN INDEPENDENT TRANSACTION, SO THAT THE AMOUNT BELONGED TO HIS DAUGHTER, COULD ALSO NOT BE ACCEPTED, BEING UNSUPPORTED BY ANY EVID ENCE. THE AMOUNTS WERE DEPOSITED SIMULTANEOUSLY IN ALL THE THREE ACCOUNTS, AND THE B ANK PAY-IN-SLIPS FOUND FROM THE ASSESSEES RESIDENCE. THERE WAS NO AMBIGUITY IN TH E ASSESSEES STATEMENT, DULY REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ACCEPTING THE O WNERSHIP OF THE THREE AMOUNTS TOTALLING TO ` 8 LAKHS, WHICH WERE EXPLAINED AS OUT OF HIS INCOME. IN FACT, THE CONTENTION WITH REGARD TO IT BEING THE DAUGHTERS INCOME/PROPE RTY IS NOT VALID IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONFIRMATION FROM HER, WHICH RATHER WOULD REQUIRE B EING SUPPORTED WITH SOME EVIDENCE, AS BY WAY OF A CORRESPONDING WITHDRAWAL FROM HER AC COUNTED SOURCE. EVEN NO CASH FLOW I.T.A. NO. 151/COCH/2011 3 STATEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE DAUGHTER WAS PLACED ON RECORD. AGGRIEVED BY THE CONFIRMATION, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. 3.1 OUR FIRST OBSERVATION IN THE MATTER IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RETRACTED HIS UNAMBIGUOUS STATEMENT/DEPOSITION DATED 25.7.2007. T HE SAME, FURNISHED VOLUNTARILY, EXPLAINS THE ENTIRE AMOUNT DEPOSITED SIMULTANEOUSLY , I.E., IN ALL THE THREE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNTS WITH THE SAME BANK IN THE NAME OF HIMSELF AND HIS IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS, IN CASH, AND THE PASS BOOKS AND PAY-IN-SLIPS IN RES PECT OF WHICH WERE FOUND FROM HIS RESIDENCE DURING SEARCH, AS OUT OF HIS CONSULTANCY INCOME, RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS COMPANIES/FIRMS FOR WHICH HE WORKED AFTER HIS RETIR EMENT, AND ONLY IN NOVEMBER, 2004. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES; THE STATEMENT BEING CORROB ORATED BY AND IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCES, IT WAS INCUMBENT ON THE A SSESSEE TO SHOW AS TO WHAT INFIRMITY OR MISTAKEN BELIEF OF FACT/S ATTENDED HIS DISCLOSUR E ON BEING QUESTIONED IN RESPECT OF THE SAME, LISTING THE THREE DEPOSITS (ALONG WITH THEIR PARTICULARS) SEQUENTIALLY IN THE QUESTION FRAMED , I.E., ON SUBSEQUENTLY CONTENDING IT TO BE NOT A TRU E STATEMENT OF FACT PER HIS RETURN OF INCOME FILED ONLY ON 05/6/2009, I.E., AFTER 23 M ONTHS . THE FACT THAT THE DEPOSITION IS NOT U/S. 132(4), WHICH STANDS SPECIFICALLY MANDATED BY LAW AS AN ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE WHICH COULD BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, BUT U/S. 131, A FTER SEARCH, AS WAS SOUGHT TO BE HIGHLIGHTED BEFORE US BY THE LD. AR, WOULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE TO THE EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE ADMISSION. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER FAILED TO S UPPORT HIS CHANGED STAND, I.E., IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IN ANY MANNER. FIRSTLY, EVE N AS CONCEDED TO BY THE LD. AR DURING THE HEARING, HE HAS NOT MADE OUT ANY CASE IN RESPEC T OF THE NON-RETURNED DEPOSIT OF ` 2 LAKHS IN THE SECOND JOINT ACCOUNT (WITH HIS WIFE). WITH REGARD TO THE DEPOSIT OF ` 3 LAKHS IN THE THIRD JOINT ACCOUNT, IN THE NAMES OF HIS DAU GHTER AND SON-IN-LAW, THE SAME IS NOT EVEN AS MUCH AS CONFIRMED BY HIS DAUGHTER, WHOSE MO NEY IT IS CLAIMED TO BE. IN FACT, AS RIGHTLY OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE SAME WOULD BY ITSELF BE NOT SUFFICIENT, I.E., UNLESS SUPPORTED BY SOME OTHER CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL, AS BY WAY OF WITHDRAWAL OR RECEIPT FROM SOME SOURCE. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE DAUGHTER WAS ABROAD (DUBAI) AT THE RELEVANT I.T.A. NO. 151/COCH/2011 4 TIME. THE SAME MAY BE TRUE, BUT THEN THE SAME RAIS ES MORE QUESTIONS THAN IT RESOLVES. THE ONLY THING THE SAME EXPLAINS IS AS TO WHY THE C ONFIRMATION COULD NOT BE GIVEN IMMEDIATELY. THE ASSESSEE HAVING IN FACT OWNED UP T HE DEPOSITS DURING THE POST-SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, AND CHANGED HIS STAND ONLY SUBSEQUENTL Y, THE SAME (CONFIRMATION) WAS REQUIRED ONLY IN SUPPORT OF THE CHANGED STAND, I.E. , PER HIS RETURN FILED MUCH LATER, OR DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOLLOWING IT. IN FACT, IF THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED BELONGED, AS CONTENDED, TO THE DAUGHTER, THE SAME WOULD EITHE R HAVE BEEN LEFT WITH HER FATHER BEFORE GOING ABROAD OR REMITTED FROM ABROAD. THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS OPERATING THE DAUGHTERS ACCOUNT OR IF SHE WAS ONLY A BENAMI IN RESPECT OF THAT BANK ACCOUNT, AS AGAIN PLEADED BY THE LD. AR, BUT THE SO URCE OF THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEES DAUGHTER (WITH HER H USBAND), WHICH WAS ADMITTEDLY DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE - HIS DAUGHTER AND SON-IN -LAW BEING ABROAD AT THE RELEVANT TIME - AND ACCEPTED AS OUT OF HIS CONSULTANCY INCOME REC EIVED ONLY IN NOVEMBER, 2004, I.E., THE SAME SOURCE AS FOR THE OTHER TWO CASH DEPOSITS (FOR LIKE AMOUNTS) MADE SIMULTANEOUSLY IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF SELF AND HIS WIFE. THE FACTS ARE SELF-SPEAKING, AND THE ASSESSEES CHANGED STAND UNSUPPORTED BY ANY MAT ERIAL OR CIRCUMSTANCE. THE LAW IN THE MATTER IS WELL-SETTLED, AND FOR WHICH WE MAY REFER TO THE DECISIONS BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF V. KUNHAMBU & SONS V. CIT , 219 ITR 235 (KER) AND SUDHAKARAN (C.K.) V. ITO , 279 ITR 533 (KER). WE ACCORDINGLY FIND NO MERIT I N THE ASSESSEES CASE AND, CONSEQUENTLY, NO REASON TO INT ERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WHICH WE UPHOLD. 3.2 BEFORE CLOSING THE ISSUE, IT WOULD ALSO BE IN ORDER TO EXPRESSLY DEAL WITH THE ASSESSEES GROUND NO. 4, WHICH ALLEGES NON-GRANT OF PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO HIM. WE FIND NO CORRESPONDING GROUND IN THE GROUNDS ASSUMED BEFO RE THE LD. CIT(A), EVEN AS THE ASSESSEE MENTIONS OF A LACK OF OPPORTUNITY FOR PERS ONAL EXPLANATION, WHICH THOUGH IS MORE IN THE FORM OF A NARRATION OF EVENTS, THAN A SPECIFIC GROUND. FURTHER, WE FIND THE CHARGE AS UNWARRANTED; THE ASSESSEE FURNISHING AN E XPLANATION VIDE LETTER DATED 26.10.2009. WHEN AN ASSESSEE FURNISHES AN EXPLANAT ION, IT IS FOR IT TO SUPPORT IT WITH I.T.A. NO. 151/COCH/2011 5 COGENT MATERIAL, WHICH IT HAS FAILED TO, AND THE AO IS NOT OBLIGED TO, ON FINDING THE SAME AS NOT ACCEPTABLE, WHICH HE DOES SO WITH REASONS, C OMMUNICATE THE SAME BEFORE HAND TO THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID GROUND WAS NOT PRESSED BEFORE US , AS ALSO APPEARS TO BE THE CASE BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS WELL. IN FA CT, THE ASSESSEES CASE HAS BEEN FULLY EXPLAINED BY HIM; HE BEING SPECIFICALLY QUESTIONED WITH REGARD TO THE ABSENCE OF THE `CONFIRMATION BY THE DAUGHTER IN RESPECT OF MONEY ( ` 3 LAKHS) STATED TO BE HER PROPERTY, WHILE CONCEDES TO THE NON-EXISTENCE OF ANY CASE IN RESPECT OF THE BANK DEPOSIT IN THE WIFES JOINT ACCOUNT WITH HIM. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO MERIT IN THE SAID GROUND AS WELL. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES RE LEVANT GROUNDS. 4.1 GROUND NO. 6 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COMPUTATION OF LONG- TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON RECEIPT OF ` 20 LAKHS FOR SURRENDER OF HIS TENANCY RIGHTS IN RESPEC T OF HIS RENTED FLAT AT MUMBAI DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. THE SAME WAS CLAIMED ON THE BASIS THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE SAID RIGHTS AS ON 1.4.1981 WAS AT ` 3.50 LAKHS. THE AO, BEING OF THE VIEW THAT NO SUCH DEDUCTION IS PERMISSIBLE IN VIEW OF S. 55(2)(A)(II) , WHICH DEEMS THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF, INTER ALIA , TENANCY RIGHTS, AS NIL, QUESTIONED THE ASSESSEE I N ITS RESPECT. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD PAID A SUM OF ` 20,000/- TOWARD THE SAME IN THE YEAR 1961, I.E., WHEN THE PREMISES WAS TAKEN ON RENT, IN TERMS OF TH E PREVALENT PRACTICE OF PAYING `PAGDI, THE SAME CONTINUING SINCE A LONG TIME. THE SAME, BE ING UNSUBSTANTIATED, WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO. 4.2 IN APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A RECEIPT FOR A REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT OF ` 335/- (DATED 1.9.1961), WHICH WAS EXPLAINED TO BE EQUIVAL ENT TO THE RENT FOR THREE MONTHS, THE RATE BEING AT ` 112 PER MONTH. FURTHER, A SUM OF ` 2000/-, AGAIN DULY RECEIPTED, WAS EXPENDED ON THE REPAIR OF DRAINAGE IN 1996. THE SU M OF ` 20,000/- WAS IN FACT PAID FOR THE REPAIRS OF THE FLAT, SO AS TO MAKE IT HABITABLE , AND WAS ONLY IN TERMS OF THE EXTANT PRACTICE IN MUMBAI. A LETTER FROM THE GRANDDAUGHTE R OF THE OWNER - HE BEING NO MORE - WAS OBTAINED IN CONFIRMATION OF THE FLAT BEING UNDE R TENANCY SINCE 1961. THE LD. CIT(A) I.T.A. NO. 151/COCH/2011 6 WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM QUA THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE TENANCY RIGHTS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE. THE RENT RECEIPT S WERE NOT RELEVANT, AND EVEN OTHERWISE CONSTITUTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, INADMISS IBLE U/R. 46A. THE ASSESSEE HAD IN FACT CONTRADICTED HIMSELF WHEN HE STATES THAT THE AMOUNT OF ` 20,000/- WAS GIVEN (TO THE OWNER) FOR CARRYING OUT REPAIRS OF THE FLAT, SO THA T THE SAME DID NOT ADMITTEDLY CONSTITUTE THE COST OF ACQUISITION, EITHER OF THE FLAT OR OF A NY RIGHTS THEREIN. THE DISALLOWANCE WAS THUS CONFIRMED BY HIM. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS I N APPEAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, WHO MADE LIKE SUBMISS IONS BEFORE US, AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THE ASSESSEES CLAIM A S WHOLLY UNTENABLE. THIS IS FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT THE COST OF THE TENANCY RIGHTS, WHICH WOULD DEFINITELY FALL TO BE ALLOWED IN THE COMPUTATION OF LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAI NS U/S. 55(2)(A)(I), I.E., WHERE ACTUALLY INCURRED, IS TO BE SHOWN AS SO, FOR IT TO BE CONSID ERED AS SUCH, OR ELSE WOULD STAND TO BE DEEMED BY LAW (S. 55(2)(A)(II)) AS `NIL, BEING QUA A SPECIFIED SELF-GENERATED ASSET. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IS TOTALLY UNSUPPORTED BY ANY EVID ENCE, AS WELL AS SELF-CONTRADICTORY, INASMUCH AS THE SAME WAS ADMITTEDLY FOR CARRYING OU T REPAIRS TO THE FLAT. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION OF IT BEING NOT EXPECTED TO MAINTAIN `RE CEIPTS AFTER OVER FOUR DECADES, AND THAT THE MATTER SHOULD THUS BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF P REPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY, AS WAS FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI P.U. RADHAKRISHNAN VS. ITO (IN I.T.A. NO. 167/COCH/2006 DATED 11.1.2008 FOR A.Y. 1 999-2000), IS, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WITHOUT ANY MERIT. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED RECEIPTS FOR SUMS AS MEAGRE AS ` 335/-, IT IS INCOMPREHENSIBLE THAT HE WOULD NOT QUA AN AMOUNT 60 TIMES HIGHER, PAID ALONG WITH AND, FURTHER, WHICH CONFERS ON HIM SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS. TENANCY RIGHTS, IT MAY BE APPRECIATED, NEED NOT BE SURRENDE RED BACK TO THE OWNER (OF THE PROPERTY) ITSELF, BUT COULD, WHERE PURCHASED (AS CLAIMED), BE SOLD/TRANSFERRED TO ANY OTHER AGREEING TO PAY THE FAIR MARKET VALUE THEREOF, SO THAT THE S AID TRANSFER COULD ONLY BE ON THE BASIS OF SOME MATERIALS EVIDENCING THE SPECIFIC ACQUISITION THEREOF, AT A COST. ON WHAT BASIS, ONE MAY ASK, WOULD THE ASSESSEE BE ABLE TO TRANSFER OR ASSIGN THE SAID RIGHTS IN FAVOUR OF ANY OTHER PERSON, SHOULD HE CHOOSE TO ? IN FACT, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF THE ASSESSEE PA YING I.T.A. NO. 151/COCH/2011 7 SUCH A HEAVY SUM, APPROXIMATING THE COST OF THE FLA T ITSELF, AS INFERRED FROM THE FACT OF THE SAME BEING AT 180 TIMES (APPROX.) THE MONTHLY RENTA L, WITHOUT PROPER DOCUMENTATION, INCLUDING ITS RECEIPT, SIGNIFYING ACQUISITION OF TH E STATED RIGHTS. THE QUESTION OF A DECISION ON THE BASIS OF PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES, THE REFORE, DOES NOT ARISE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES; THE SAME BEING APPLICABLE ONLY WHERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES CLEARLY INDICATE SO. ALSO, THE CLAIM OF THE SAID AMOUNT AS BEING TOW ARD REPAIRS OF THE FLAT ONLY CONTRADICTS THE ASSESSEES CASE ON FACTS, AS RIGHTLY OBSERVED B Y THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, AS, THE AMOUNT WAS THUS NOT TOWARD ACQUIRING ANY (TENANCY) RIGHTS. THE RENT IS ONLY FOR, OR THE ASSESSEE CAN ONLY BE PRESUMED TO HAVE RENTED, A HAB ITABLE ACCOMMODATION. BESIDES, WHAT THE RECIPIENT DOES WITH THE MONEY IS OF LITTLE RELEVANCE/SIGNIFICANCE. THE MOOT QUESTION IS WHAT FOR WAS THE AMOUNT CLAIMED PAID, I .E., AS FAR AS THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, AND, FURTHER, IS THERE ANY MATERIAL TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE IS NO MATERIAL TO EVIDENCE THE PAYMENT, MUCH LESS THE PUR POSE FOR WHICH IT WAS GIVEN, WITH THE STATED REASON BEING IN APPARENT CONTRADICTION, EVEN AS THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED RECEIPTS FOR NOMINAL AMOUNTS, BOTH IN ABSOLUTE AND COMPARATIVE TERMS. WE ACCORDINGLY FIND NO MERIT IN THE ASSESSEES CLAIMS AND, CONSEQU ENTLY, NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WHICH IS THEREFORE UPHELD. WE DECID E ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D. SD/- SD/- (N.VIJAYAKUMARAN) (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: ERNAKULAM DATED: 29TH JULY, 2011 GJ COPY TO: 1. SHRI P.KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, RAMANILAYAM, TRICHAMBA RAM, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL C IRCLE-2, CALICUT. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, KOCH I. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL, KOCHI. 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE . I.T.A. NO. 151/COCH/2011 8