P.Easwari, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1655/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 96135 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 15-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 23-08-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: B S PURUSHOTHAM
• Keywords: Gift; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI , . , BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO. 1653, 1654, 1655, 1656, 1657 & 1658 /MDS/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR S :200 0 - 01, 01 - 02, 02 - 03, 04 - 05, & 05 - 06 SMT. P. EASWARI, NO. 4 & 5, PRAKASAM STREET, JANAKI NAGAR, VALASARAVAKKAM, CHENNAI 600 087. [PAN: A A EPE1790M ] VS. THE ASSIS TANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE I (3), CHENNAI 600 034 . ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI B.S. PURUSHOTHAM, C.A. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, J CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 15 . 0 9 .201 5 / DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 30 . 0 9 .201 5 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER : TH E S E SIX APPEAL S FILED BY THE SAME ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) I I , CHENNAI , DATED 22 . 0 4 .20 1 3 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 200 0 - 0 1, 2001 - 02, 2002 - 03, 2004 - 05 AND 2005 - 06 PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [ ACT IN SHORT] . FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 153C R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. SINCE ALL THE APPEALS PERTAIN TO SAME ASSESSEE AND I.T.A. NO S . 1653 - 1658 /M/ 13 2 HEARD TOGETHER, ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE . 2. THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NOS. 1653, 1654, 1656, 1657 & 1658/MDS/2013 ARE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN FILED LATE BY 54 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. THE APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO. 1655/MDS/2013 IS ALSO FOUND TO HAVE BEEN FILED LATE BY 134 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED SEPARATE A FFIDAVIT S TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILLING THE APPEALS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS WAS NEITHER WILFUL NOR DELIBERATE BUT DUE TO COMPELLING BONAFIDE CIRCUMSTANCES. THE IMPUGNED ORDER GOT MIXED UP WITH OTHER PAPERS AND THE ASSESSEE COULD ABLE TO RETRIEVE THE ORDER O NLY IN JUNE, 2013. THEREAFTER, AFTER TAKING THE ADVICE OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, THE APPEAL PAPERS WERE PREPARED AND FILED. THEREFORE, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO WILFUL ATTEMPT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE AND PRAYED FOR CONDONING THE DELAY AND TO ADMIT THE APPEAL S FOR HEARING. THE LD. DR HAS NOT SERIOUSLY OBJECT ED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE . 3. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE AFFIDAVITS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND FIND THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR CONDONING THE DELAY. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE ABOVE APPEALS AND ADMIT THE APPEAL S FOR HEARING . I.T.A. NO S . 1653 - 1658 /M/ 13 3 4. FIRST COMMON GROUND RAISED IN THE ABOVE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO LEVY OF PENALTY ON ADDITION OF RENTAL INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000 - 01, 2001 - 02, 2002 - 03, 2004 - 05 AND 2005 - 06. 5 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE LEADING TO LEVY OF P ENALTY ARE THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH ACTION U NDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT IN THE CASES OF SRM GROUP OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND PERSONS CON TROLLING THE GROUP ON 12.0 8 .2004. SHRI T.R.PACHAMUTHU, CHAIRMAN OF THE GRO UP WAS ALSO COVERED DURING THE SEARCH OPER ATION. THE ASSESSEE IS THE WIFE OF S HRI PACHAMUTHU. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U NDER SECTION 153C R.W. S . 153A, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ADMITTING INCOME OF .2 8,85,624/ - AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF .1,98,200/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01, .51,35,302/ - AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF .1,06,580/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02, .58,38,607/ - AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF .1,82,470/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03, .35,40,780/ - AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF .1,15,358/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 AND .15,35,412/ - AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF .1,45,687/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06. THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS WERE COMPLETED UNDER 153C R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT BY MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS AND P ENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) WERE ALSO INITIATED. 6. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL S BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AGAINST THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ALL ASSESSMENT YEARS . THE ID.C IT(A) I.T.A. NO S . 1653 - 1658 /M/ 13 4 DELETED SOME OF THE ADDITIONS. HE, HOWEVER, ALLOWED AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND SUSTAINED RENTAL INCOME OF .90, 000 / - FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS . BOTH THE DEPARTMENT AND ASSESSEE FILED FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ID.CIT(A). THE ITAT VIDE ITS COMMON ORDER IN I . T . A . NOS.1271 TO 1276/M D S / 2008 AND I . T . A . NOS.1432 TO 1438/MDS/200 8 D ATED 22.05.2009 CONF I R MED MOST OF THE DECISIONS OF THE CIT(A) BUT W ITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF RENTAL INCOME, THE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. IN PURSUANCE O F THE DIRECTION S OF THE ITAT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE, PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY REPEATING THE ADDITION OF .90,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF RENTAL INCOME FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 7. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF RENTAL INCOME AND LEVIED PENALTY AMOUNTING TO .62,107/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01, .34,000/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02, .1,57,000/ - [FOR BOTH THE ADDITION ON RENTAL INCOME AND SUNDRY LOANS] FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03, .27,000/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 AND .83,000/ - [FOR BOTH THE ADDITION ON RENTAL INCOME AND SILVER ARTICLES] FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06. 8. AGAINST THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) FOR I.T.A. NO S . 1653 - 1658 /M/ 13 5 ALL THE ASSESSME NT YEARS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RE - ASSESSMENT ORDER, PENALTY ORDER AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 4.5 THE FIRST ISSUE PERTAINS TO LEVY OF PENALTY ON ADDITION OF RENTAL INCOME OF RS.90,000/ - . WHILE FRAMING THE ORIGI NAL ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RS.90,000/ - AS RENTAL RECEIPT FROM THE PROPERTY AT BLOSSOM INFOTECH BUILDING IN THE A.Y.2003 - 04. HOWEVER, NO SUCH INCOME WAS SHOWN IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WHEN CONFRONTED, THE ASSESS EE REPLIED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS GIVEN THROUGH A SETTLEMENT DEED TO HER TWO SONS. HOWEVER, NO DETAILS WERE FILED. THE AO FURTHER NOTICED FROM VERIFICATION OF THE I.T. RECORDS OF DR.SHIVAKUMAR (HUF), SON - IN - LAW OF THE APPELLANT, THAT HE HAD PAID RENT OF RS. 90,000/ - FOR THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY FROM A.Y.2000 - 01. HENCE, THE RENTAL INCOME WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) - I, CHENNAI IN ITA NO.190/06 - 07 DATED 05.03.2008 CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. THE ID. CITCA) FOU ND THAT ANNUAL RENT OF RS.90,000/ - WAS PAID BY DR.5HIVAKUMAR (HUF) AS A TENANT TO THE APPELLANT. HENCE, HE HELD THAT THE AO WAS WELL WITHIN HIS RIGHT TO ASSESS THE SAID SUM AS HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME. ON FURTHER APPEAL, THE HON'BLE ITAT VIDE ITS COMMON ORDER IN ITA NOS.1271 TO 1276/MDS/Z008 AND ITA NOS.1432 TO 1438/MDS/2008 DATED 22.05.2009 SET - ASIDE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO PASS A FRESH ORDER AFTER CONDUCTING NECESSARY ENQUIRY AND VERIFICATION. IT OBSERVED THAT THE AO MADE THE ADDITION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE INCOME - TAX RECORDS OF THE TENANT WITHOUT MAKING ANY ENQUIRY AND VERIFICATION OR GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO DEFEND HER CASE. DURING THE SET - ASIDE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT SHE DID NOT OFFER THE RENTAL INCOME FOR T HE REASON THAT SHE DID NOT RECEIVED ANY RENT DURING THE YEAR FROM THE TENANT. THE AO, HOWEVER, MADE THE ADDITION BY STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE DURING THE SAID PROCEEDINGS. IN THE PENALTY ORDER, THE AO HAD STATED THAT THE ASSESSE E COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING SETTLEMENT OF THE PROPERTY TO HER SONS. HENCE, HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED INCOME OF RS.90,000/ - TOWARDS RENTAL INCOME. I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN TAKING CONTRARY STANDS IN DIFFERENT PROCEEDING S. AT ONE STAGE, SHE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS VACANT AND SHE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RENT. SUBSEQUENTLY, SHE CLAIMED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS GIVEN TO HER SONS BY WAY OF A SETTLEMENT DEED AND THE RENTAL INCOME WAS NOT OFFERED BECAUSE SHE HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY RENT DURING THE YEAR. THE LD. CIT(A) - I, CHENNAI HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS NOT VACANT. I.T.A. NO S . 1653 - 1658 /M/ 13 6 FURTHER, IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVED THAT DR. SHIVAKUMAR (HUF) DID NOT GIVE RENT OF RS.90,000/ - TO THE APPELLANT FOR THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY. THE RENTA L INCOME HAS NOT BEEN ADMITTED BY THE APPELLANT OR HER SONS. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THAT HER TWO SONS ARE THE ACTUAL OWNERS OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY. HENCE, THERE IS CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS REGARDING RECEI PT OF RENTAL INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY BLOSSOM INFOTECH BUILDING'. THE AO HAS, THEREFORE, RIGHTLY LEVIED THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR CONCEALMENT OF RENTAL INCOME OF RS.90,000/ - . THE SAME IS CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND IS DISMISSED. 9. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001 - 02, 2002 - 03, 2004 - 05 AND 2005 - 06, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF RENTAL INCOME. 10 . ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR ALL THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED ON BONAFIDE ERRORS OF OMISSION. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID HUGE AMOUNT OF TAX AND MISTAKE OCCURRED. HENCE, PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED AND PRAYED THAT THE TRIBUNAL MAY KINDLY DELETE THE PENALTY. 11. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME , BECAUSE, THE RENTAL INCOME HAS NOT BEEN ADMITTED EITHER BY THE ASSESSEE OR BY HER SONS. MOREOV ER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT HER TWO SONS ARE THE ACTUAL OWNERS OF THE SAID PROPERTY SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED DURING ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THE SAID PROPERTY WAS GIVEN THROUGH A I.T.A. NO S . 1653 - 1658 /M/ 13 7 SETTLEMENT DEED TO HER TW O SONS. ALL THE FACTS GO TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS TO CONCEAL INCOME. FURTHER, THE LD. DR STRONGLY RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF OF MAK DATA P. LTD., VS. C IT 358 ITR 593. 12. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUS ED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE IS THE WIFE OF SHRI T.R. PACHAMUTHU, WHO IS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SRM GROUP OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. THE ASSESSEE, ORIGINALLY FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01 ON 29.10.2001 BY ADMITTING INCOME OF .38,65,780/ - . AFTER THE SEARCH OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT IN THE CASES OF SRM GROUP CONCERNS , THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN UNDER SECTI O N 153C REVEALING THE INCOME OF .28,85,624/ - AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF .1,98,200/ - . HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DECLARED ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED ON 29.10.2001. THIS IS THE SITUATION IN ALL ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION . THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMEN T BY MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED MOST OF THE ADDITIONS AND SUSTAINED ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF RENTAL INCOME. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), BOTH ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL CO NFIRMED MOST OF THE DECISIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND SET ASIDE SOME OF THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. I.T.A. NO S . 1653 - 1658 /M/ 13 8 13. SO FAR AS RENTAL INCOME IS CONCERNED, DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHEN DETAILS WERE ASKED TO FILE THE DET AILS OF THE PROPERTY I.E, BLOSSOM INFOTECH BUILDING , THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS SETTLED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE NAMES OF HER TWO SONS DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BY WAY OF A SETTLEMENT DEED. HOWEVER, THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR LD. CIT(A) OR EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATION. THE TRIBUNAL HAS REMITTED THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO DISPOSE THE MATTER AFTER CONDUCTING NECESSARY ENQUIRY AND VERIFICATION. A FTER HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION WITH REGARD TO RENTAL INCOME SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE . APART FROM TH IS O N VERIFICATION OF THE INCOME TAX RECORDS OF SHRI SHIVAKUMAR (HUF), SON - IN - LAW OF THE ASSESSEE, A SUM OF .90,000/ - WAS PAID TO THE ASSESSEE AS RENT FOR THE ABOVE PROPERTY. THEREFORE, DURING THE SET ASIDE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GET RELIEF FOR RENTAL RECEIPTS. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ALSO , THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO SETTLEMENT OF THE SAID PROPERTY TO HER SONS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED THE RENTAL INCOMES IN HER RETURN AND CONCEALED THE PARTICU LARS OF INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) I.T.A. NO S . 1653 - 1658 /M/ 13 9 CONFIRMED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THAT SHE HAS EXECUTED THE SETTLEMENT DEED IN FAVOUR OF HER TWO SONS AND THEREBY THE ACTUAL OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY ARE HER TWO SONS SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED DURING ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THE SAID PROPERTY WAS GIVEN THROUGH A SETT LEMENT DEED TO HER TWO SONS. EVEN BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD. 14. WE FIND THAT EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AUTOMATICALLY COMES INTO OPERATION WHEN IN RESPECT OF ANY FACTS MATERIAL TO T HE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME, THERE IS FAILURE TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION OR AN EXPLANATION IS OFFERED WHICH IS FOUND TO BE FALSE BY THE A SSESSING O FFICER OR AN EXPLANATION IS OFFERED WHICH IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED. IN SUCH A CASE, THE AMOUNT ADDED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME IS DEEMED TO REPRESENT THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN CONCEALED. 15. THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD. DR AND THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY T HE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MAK DATA P. LTD., VS. C IT (SUPRA) HAS BEEN PERUSED. THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT THE EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT RAISES A PRESUMPTION OF CONCEALMENT, WHEN A DIFFERENCE IS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BETWEEN THE REPORTED AND ASSESSED INCOME. THE BURDEN IS THEN ON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW OTHERWISE, BY COGENT AND RELIABLE EVIDENCE . W HEN THE INITIAL ONUS I.T.A. NO S . 1653 - 1658 /M/ 13 10 PLACED BY THE EXPLANATION, HAS BEEN DISCHARGED BY HIM , THE ONUS SHIFTS T O THE DEPARTMENT TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION CONSTITUTED INCOME AND NOT OTHERWISE. THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED ANY EXPLANATION FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME HAS TO BE CONSIDERED . 1 6 . IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS WITH REGARD TO RENTAL INCOME AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. ANOTHER CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID HUGE TAX , BUT, THAT IS NOT AT ALL A VALID GROUND TO DELETE THE PENALTY. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF MAK DATA P. LTD., VS. C IT (SUPRA), THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THI S ISSUE STANDS SUSTAINED FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. I.T.A. NO. 1656/MDS/2013 [A.Y. 2002 - 03] 17 . IN THIS APPEAL, THE FIRST ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO RENTAL INCOME HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED HERE INABOVE WITH OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THE NEXT ISSUE PERTAINS TO PENALTY LEVIED FOR THE ADDITION TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED SUNDRY LOAN. I N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SUNDRY LOANS OF .28,41,000/ - . SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED EVIDENCE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, I.T.A. NO S . 1653 - 1658 /M/ 13 11 THE ENTIRE SUNDRY LOAN OF .28,41,000/ - WAS TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED TO THE RETURNED INCOME. THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 05.03.2008, AFTER CONSID ERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, DELETED THE ADDITION OF .25,00,000/ - AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF .3,41,000/ - . ON FURTHER APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS COMMON ORDER IN I.T.A. NO. 1271 TO 1276/MDS/2008 AND I.T.A. NO. 1432 TO 1438/MDS/2008 DATED 22 .05.2009 FOUND NO ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WHEREBY ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF .25 LAKHS WAS DELETED AND THE BALANCE ADDITION OF .3,41,000/ - WAS FURTHER CONFIRMED. 18 . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UND ER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF .3,41,000/ - CONFIRMED BY BOTH THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED SATISFACTORILY WITH REGARD TO THE SUNDRY LOAN CREDITORS, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS LEVIED THE PENALTY FOR .3,41,000/ - . ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SINCE NO SATISFACTORY MATERIAL EVIDENCE WAS PLACED BEFORE HIM . 19 . ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT LEVY OF PENALTY IS NOT AUTOMATIC. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ALL THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AGAINST WHICH VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE FURTHER CONFIRMED AND TAXES P AID ACCORDINGLY. AGAIN LEVYING PENALTY IS FURTHER BURDENING THE ASSESSEE AND PRAYED THAT THE PENALTY MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. I.T.A. NO S . 1653 - 1658 /M/ 13 12 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. S. SANKARAN 241 ITR 825 (MAD). 2 0 . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAD STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 2 1 . AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, WE FIND THAT PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS LEVIED IN THE PRESENT CASE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN PROPERLY TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY . THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH DETAILS OF SUNDRY LOANS TO THE EXTENT OF .3,41,000/ - . IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE PARTICULARS. AFTER VERIFICATION OF RECORDS, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT AGAINST THE SUNDRY LOAN AMOUNTING TO .28,41,000/ - , THE SUNDRY LOAN AMOUNTING TO .25 LAKHS WERE VERY MUCH GENUINE AND DELETED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF .25 LAKHS AND SUSTAINED THE BALANCE TO THE EXTENT OF .3,41,000/ - . ON FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE TRIBUNAL ALSO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). FROM THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE PARTICULARS BUT COULD NOT ABLE TO SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THE GENUINENESS OF THE SUNDRY LOAN TO THE EXTENT OF .3,41,000/ - OUT OF .28,41,000/ - . ON PERUSAL OF THE PENALTY ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SIMPL Y LEVIED THE PENALTY BY CLUBBING ALL THE ADDITIONS. THE P ENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DIFFERENT FROM ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ON ESTIMATED BASIS. I.T.A. NO S . 1653 - 1658 /M/ 13 13 THERE IS NO WILFUL CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO OFFERED HUGE AMOUNT OF INCOME FOR TAXATION IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. S. SANKARAN 241 ITR 825, WHEREIN THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT MERE AD DITION TO INCOME AT THE INSTANCE OF ASSESSEE WOULD NOT WARRANT A FINDING OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR THE LEVY OF PENALTY. MERE ADDITION OF INCOME AGREED TO BY IT ITSELF IS NOT THE PROOF OF CONCEALMENT. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE NOT CORRECT IN INITIATING PE NALTY PROCEEDINGS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLES NAMELY THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE QUITE DISTINCT AND THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE. ACCORDI NGLY, MERE ADDITION OF AMOUNT OF .3,41,000/ - AS INCOME IS NOT THE CRITERIA TO LEVY PENALTY. THUS, WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CASE TO LEVY PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE PENALTY. THU S, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. I.T.A. NO. 1658/MDS/2013 [A.Y. 2005 - 06] 22 . FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ONLY TWO GROUNDS, OUT OF WHICH, THE FIRST GROUND IS WITH REGARD TO DELETION OF PENALTY LEVIED TOWARDS RENTAL INCOME HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED HEREIN ABOVE ALONG WITH OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THE NEXT ISSUE PERTAINS TO PENALTY LEVIED FOR THE ADDITION TOWARDS THE VALUE OF UNEXPLAINED SILVER ARTICLES. DURING THE I.T.A. NO S . 1653 - 1658 /M/ 13 14 SEARCH ACTION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT ON 12.08.2004, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNED 33578.10 GRAMS OF SILVER. SINCE THE A S S ESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION REGARDING THE SI LV ER FOUN D IN HER ROOM, THE VALUE OF SILVER WAS TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESS E E . THE LD.CI T(A) IN ITA N O.195 / 06 - 07 DATED 05.03.2008 HELD THAT NO SILVER ARTICLE WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN DECLARED IN THE APPELLANT'S VDIS DECLARATION. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE COULD BE FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT I N SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION THAT SHE HAD RECEIV ED THE SILVER ARTICLES BY WA Y OF G IFT FROM DIFFERENT RELATIVES. AS THERE WAS NO SATISFACTORY EX P LANATION REGARDING THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF THE SILVER ARTICLES, THE ADDITION OF .2,68,6 24/ - WAS SUSTAINED. ON FURTHER APPEAL, THE ITAT IN I . T . A . NOS.1271 T O 1276/MDS / 2008 AND I . T . A . NOS.1432 TO 1438/ M DS / 2008 DATED 22.05.200 9 H ELD THAT IT WOULD BE PROPER AND APPROPRIATE IF A REASONABLE QUANTITY OF SILVER A RTICLES FOUND IS TREATED AS SREEDHANAM AND GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE . A CCORDINGL Y , THE ITAT DIRECTE D TO TREAT 50% OF THE TOTAL VALUE AS SREEDHANAM AND GIFTS R E CEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REMAINING 50% SHALL BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. THE A SSESSING OFFICER IN THE PENALTY ORDER HAS CONCLUDED THAT, THE ASSESSEE HAS C ONCEALED SILVE R ARTICLES TO TH E EXTENT OF .1 ,34,312 / - AND ACCORDINGLY LEVIED THE PENALTY. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), T HE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT SINCE THE ITAT HAS ACCEPTED THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING RECEIPT OF SILVER ARTICLES BY WAY OF SREEDHANAM AND GIFTS AND T HER E IS NO CATEGORICAL FINDING TO THE I.T.A. NO S . 1653 - 1658 /M/ 13 15 CONTRARY. UNLESS A F I NDING IS GIVEN THAT THE ENTIRE SILVER ARTICLES ARE UNEXPLAINED, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT CONCEALMENT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND OBS ERVED THAT T HE ONUS I S ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF THE ENTIRE SILVER ARTICLES FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE ACQUISITION OF THE REMAINING SILVER ARTICLES WORTH . 1 ,34,262/ - BY SUPPORTI NG EVIDENCES AND CON FI RMATION FROM THE DONORS , THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 23 . ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTE NDED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF QUANTUM APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL HAS ACCEPTED RECEIPT OF SILVER ARTICLES BY WAY OF SREEDHANAM AND GIFTS . THEREFORE, HE PRAYED THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED SHOULD BE DELETED. 24 . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 25 . AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, WE FIND THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NOS.1432 TO 1438/MDS/2008 VIDE ORDER DATED 22.05.2009 , BY CONFIRMING 50% OF THE TOTAL VALUE OF SILVER ARTICLES AS UNDISCLOSED I NVESTMENT, DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT 50% OF THE TOTAL VALUE OF SILVER ARTICLES AS SREEDHANAM AND GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE . AGAINST I.T.A. NO S . 1653 - 1658 /M/ 13 16 50% OF THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE SILVER ARTICLES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS S REEDHANAM AND GIFTS HAS NOT BEEN RULED OUT BY THE FINAL FACTS FINDING AUTHORITY AND GAVE RELIEF TO THE EXTENT OF 50% OF THE TOTAL VALUE OF SILVER ARTICLES. IN ADDITION TO THE ADDITION CONFIRMED TO THE EXTENT OF 50%, AGAIN INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IS LEGALLY NOT JUSTIFIED AND PRAYED FOR DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E. SINCE RECEIPT OF SILVER ARTICLES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS S REEDHANAM AND GIFT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL DURING QUANTUM APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 50% OF THE TOTAL VALUE OF SILVER ARTICLES AS UNDISCLOSED I NVESTMENT , MERE CONFIRMATION OF ANY ADDITION AGREED TO BY ITSELF IS NOT THE PROOF OF CONCEALMENT. THE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT CORRECT IN INVOKING SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND LEVYING PENALTY ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DE LETE THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. I.T.A. NO. 1655/MDS/2013 [A.Y. 2002 - 03] 26 . THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 08.02.2013. IN VIEW OF THE SEARCH OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT IN THE RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS PREMISES OF SHRI T.R. PACHAMUTHU, CHAIRMAN, VALLIAMMAL SOCIETY AND SRM GROUP OF EDUCATIONAL I.T.A. NO S . 1653 - 1658 /M/ 13 17 INSTITUTIONS ON 12.08.2004, VARIOUS DOCUMENTS, UNACCOUNTED CASH, UNACCOUNTED JEWELLERY AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT. ON VERIFICATION OF RECORDS AND DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS, CONCLUDED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153C R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT ON 29.12.2006. 2 7 . THEREAFTER, THE LD. CIT, WHILE EXERCISING POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, AFTER VERIFYING THE ASSESSMENT, FOUND THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OMITTED RECEIPT OF ADVAN CE OF .25 LAKHS PAID FOR THIRUVANMIYUR PROPERTY AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 153C R.W.S. 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT ON 31.12.2009. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER PASSED IN PURSUANCE TO 263 ORDER OF THE LD. CIT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTICED THAT FROM THE SALE DOCUMENT OF THIRUVANMIYUR PROPERTY, THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT ON 23.01.2002 VIDE DOCUMENT NO.1937/23.01.2002 WITH MR.K.P. KARUPPUSWAMY REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY MR. M. RAJA FOR THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT THIRUVALLORE DISTRICT, AMBATTUR TALUK, THIUVANMIYUR VILLAGE IN SURVEY NO. 185/6 MEASURING AN EXTENT OF 84 CENTS (1/4 TH SHARE IN 84 CENTS TOGETHER WITH 12000 SQ.FT. UNCOMPLETED B UILDING). THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID .25 LAKHS AS ADVANCE TO THE VENDOR S POWER AGENT AND THE RECEIPT OF WHICH THE POWER I.T.A. NO S . 1653 - 1658 /M/ 13 18 AGENT ADMITTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED. BASED ON THE ABOVE PAYMENT OF .25 LAKHS, SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCES FOR THE SAID ADVANCE OF .25 LAKHS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE SAID AMOUNT TO THE RETURNED INCOME. 28 . AGAINST THE ABOVE ADDITION, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED TH E ADDITION OF .25 LAKHS SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF ADVANCE OF .25 LAKHS MADE TO SHRI K.P. KARUPUSAMY AND SHRI S. DANUSHKODI ON 23.01.2001 BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 4.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED AR. THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LD. AR ON 12.12.2012 AND 18.01.2013 ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH EACH OTHER. IN THE FIRST SUBMISSION IT WAS STATED THAT SINCE THE SUNDRY LOAN AND ADVANCES RECEIVED TO THE EXTENT OF .25 LAKHS H AS BEEN ACCEPTED AS GENUINE BY THE CIT(A), THE ADVANCE OF .25,00,000/ - MADE FOR PURCHASE OF LAND STANDS EXPLAINED. IN OTHER WORDS, THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT THE ADVANCE WAS MADE OUT OF THE SUNDRY LOANS AND ADVANCES RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR. IN THE SEC OND SUBMISSION, HOWEVER, A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STAND HAS BEEN TAKEN. IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS BROUGHT BY SMT. R. PADMAPRIYA. HENCE, THE AO WAS WRONG IN STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID A ADVANCE OF .25,00,000/ - TO THE POWER AGENT OF THE VEN DOR. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE, SHRI T.R. PACHAMUTHU, SHRI P. RAVI AND SHRI P. SATYANARAYANA HAD BORROWED .25 LAKHS EACH FROM M/S. REPCO BANK AND GIFTED TO SMT. PADMAPRIYA FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE SAID PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY SO PURCHASED WAS GIVE N AS COLLATERAL SECURITY TO BANK FOR AVAILMENT OF LOAN. THOUGH THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT APPEARS CONVINCING AT THE FIRST LOOK, A DETAILED ANALYSIS PROVES THE FALLACY OF SUCH SUBMISSION. THE FACT DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS REGARDING PAYMENT OF ADVANCE OF .25,00,000/ - FOR THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 23.01.2002 AND NOT THE SALE DEED DATED 30.05.2003. IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT IN MANY CASES, THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE IS ENTERED BEFORE THE ACTUAL REGISTRATION OF THE PROPERTY. IN THIS CASE ALSO, THE AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO ON I.T.A. NO S . 1653 - 1658 /M/ 13 19 23.01.2002 BUT THE ACTUAL SALE TOOK PLACE ON 30.05.2003. AT THE TIME OF ENTERING THE SALE AGREEMENT ON 23.01.2002, AN ADVANCE OF .25 LAKHS WAS PAID BY THE APPELLANT TO SHRI K.P. KARUPUSAMY AND SHRI S. DHANUSHKODI (VENDORS). THE SAID ADVANCE OF .25,00,000/ - WAS PAID OUT OF THE AGREED SUM OF .50,00,000/ - . HOWEVER, THE SALE DEED S WHICH WERE EXECUTED AFTER ONE YEAR AND FOUR MONTHS ON 30.05.2003, THE PROPERTY WAS REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF SMT. R. PADMAPRIYA DAUGHTER - IN - LAW OF THE ASSES SEE. AT THAT TIME .16,00,000/ - EACH WERE PAID TO SHRI K.P. KARUPUSAMY AND SHRI S. DHANUSHKODI, VENDORS. THESE PAYMENTS ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE ADVANCE PAYMENT OF .25,00,000/ - AS PER THE SALE AGREEMENT . THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO EXPLAIN THE ADVANCE PAID AT THAT TIME OF SALE AGREEMENT DATED 23.01.2002. IT IS ENTIRELY A DIFFERENT MATTER THAT SMT. PADMAPRIYA IS ALSO REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION IN HER CASE IN THE A.Y. 2004 - 05, SINCE THE ACTUAL PURCHASE WAS MADE ON 30.05.2003. THE ADVAN CE PAID BY THE APPELLANT WAS PRIOR TO SALE DEED EXECUTED ON 30.05.2003. THE ADVANCE PAID BY THE APPELLANT WAS PRIOR TO SALE DEED EXECUTED ON 30.05.2002 AND THE SAME HAS TO BE INDEPENDENTLY AND SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT. SO FAR AS THE CASE O F THE APPELLANT IS CONCERNED, IT IS SEEN FROM THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2002 THAT THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED SUNDRY LOAN OF .28,41,000/ - AND HAD ALSO RECEIVED .25,00,000/ - FROM REPCO BANK. THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN PAYMENT OF .18,32,180/ - TOWARDS LAND. BUT, THAT WAS TOWARDS PROPERTY AT KRISHNA NAGAR AND NOT AN ADVANCE FOR LAND AT THIRUVANMIYUR. HENCE, IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF ADVANCE FOR THIRUVANMIYUR PROPERTY. THE RECEIPT AND PAYMENT ACCOUNT ALSO DOES NOT COME TO THE RESCUE OF THE APPELLANT BECAUSE ALL RECEIPTS AMOUNT TO .1,30,96,949/ - HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID FOR VARIOUS PURPOSES AS STATED IN THE SAID ACCOUNT, THE TOTAL PAYMENTS BEING .1,30,96,949/ - . HENCE, T HE APPELLANT HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF ADVANCE OF .25,00,000/ - MADE TO SHRI K.P. KARUPUSAMY AND SHRI S. DHANUSHKODI ON 23.01.2001 AS PER SALE AGREEMENT DATED 23.01.2002. HENCE, THE ADDITION IS SUSTAINED AND APPEAL DISMISSED. 29 . ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE DELETED. I.T.A. NO S . 1653 - 1658 /M/ 13 20 30 . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE PAYMENT OF ADVANCE OF .25 LAKHS AND STRONGLY RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A). 31 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE PRESENT APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO THE ASSESSME NT ORDER PASSED IN PURSUANCE TO THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT BY THE LD. CIT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES FOR THE ADVANCE OF .25 LAKHS PAID TO SHRI K.P. KARUPUSAMY AND SHRI S. DHANUSHKODI ON 23.01.2001, THE ASSES SING OFFICER ADDED THE SAID AMOUNT TO THE RETURNED INCOME. AFTER CONSIDERING THE DIFFERENT SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED A DETAILED SPEAKING ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE, WHEREIN THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF ADVANCE FOR THIRUVANMIYUR PROPERTY, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. EVEN BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF ADVANCE OF .25,00,000/ - TO THE VENDORS FOR THIRUVANMIYUR PROPERTY. ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THUS, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. I.T.A. NO S . 1653 - 1658 /M/ 13 21 3 2 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NOS. 1653/MDS/2013, 1654/MDS/2013, 1655/MDS/2013 AND 1657/MDS/2013 ARE DISMISSED AND I.T.A. NOS. 1656 /MDS/2013 AND 1658/MDS/2013 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 30 TH SEPTEMBER , 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( CHANDRA P OOJARI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 30. 0 9 .201 5 VM/ - / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT , 2. / RESPONDENT , 3. ( ) / CIT(A) , 4. / CIT , 5. / DR & 6. / GF.