IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1664/PN/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04) MRS. A. M. BINDRA, AMRIT VILLA, NEAR BYTCO COLLEGE NASHIK-PUNE ROAD, NASHIK ROAD, NASHIK 422 101. PAN : AKUPB5174G . APPELLANT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NASHIK. . RESPONDENT ITA NOS. 1665 & 1666/PN/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 & 2006-07) MR. S. D. BINDRA AMRIT VILLA, NEAR BYTCO COLLEGE NASHIK-PUNE ROAD, NASHIK ROAD, NASHIK 422 101. PAN : AJCPB4342B . APPELLANT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NASHIK. . RESPONDENT ITA NOS. 1667 & 1668/PN/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 & 2006-07) MRS. K. R. BINDRA AMRIT VILLA, NEAR BYTCO COLLEGE NASHIK-PUNE ROAD, NASHIK ROAD, NASHIK 422 101. PAN : AKUPB5172A . APPELLANT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NASHIK. . RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : MR. M. K. KULKARNI DEPARTMENT BY : MRS. M. S. VERMA DATE OF HEARING : 02-01-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17-01-2014 A.Y. 2007-08 ORDER PER G. S. PANNU, AM THE CAPTIONED FIVE APPEALS RELATE TO THREE DIFFERE NT ASSESSEES BELONGING TO THE SAME FAMILY AND INVOLVE CERTAIN CO MMON ISSUES, THEREFORE THEY HAVE BEEN CLUBBED AND HEARD TOGETHER AND A CON SOLIDATED ORDER IS BEING PASSED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 2. BEFORE PROCEEDING TO ADJUDICATE THE RESPECTIVE G ROUNDS OF APPEAL, IT IS TO BE NOTICED THAT THE CAPTIONED ASSESSEES BELONG T O BINDRA GROUP OF CASES WHERE A SEARCH ACTION U/S 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WAS CARRIED OUT ON 15.03.2007 AND THE APPEALS RELAT E TO ADDITIONS MADE IN THE CONSEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENTS MADE U/S 153A R.W.S. 143( 3) OF THE ACT. 3. FIRST, WE SHALL TAKE-UP THE APPEAL IN THE CASE O F MRS. A.M. BINDRA IN ITA NO.1664/PN/2011 WHICH IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, NASHIK DATED 28.11.2011 WH ICH, IN TURN, HAS ARISEN FROM AN ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24.12.2008 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 4. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LAO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.8 8,330/- AND THE CIT(A)-II, NASHIK IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ENHANCING THE INCOME TO RS.1,50,000/- WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD ANY CORROBORATIVE DOCUMENTARY EV IDENCE. BOTH THE ADDITION MAY PLEAS BE CANCELLED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LAO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.88,330/- AND THE CIT(A)-II, NASHIK IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ENHANCING THE INCOME AS THE SAME ARE DEVOID OF MERIT AND CREDITABILITY. BOTH THE ADDITION MAY PLE ASE BE CANCELLED. 5. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, ASSESSEE DID NO T FILE ANY RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO TAXABLE INCOME BUT A.Y. 2007-08 IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153A OF THE ACT, A RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 20.09.2007 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.70,040/-. IN THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSEE DECLARED INCOME FROM VARIOUS SOURC ES, NAMELY, TRANSPORTATION, TUITION FEES, ETC. . THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN INVESTMENT OF RS.55,000/- IN PURCHASE OF A TRUCK AND RS.1,03,370/- IN FIXED DEPOSITS WITH BANK. THE RET URN OF INCOME WAS ACCOMPANIED BY A BALANCE-SHEET WHEREIN THE OPENING CAPITAL BALANCE WAS SHOWN AT RS.1,50,680/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH REGARD TO THE SOURCES FOR MAKING INVESTMENT OF RS.1,58,370 /- IN BUYING OF TRUCK AND FDRS. THEREFORE, HE WORKED OUT THE EXCESS OF INVES TMENT OVER THE INCOME OF RS.88,330/- (I.E. RS.1,58,370/- MINUS RS.70,040/-) AND ACCORDINGLY DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,58,370/- AS AGAINST THE RE TURNED INCOME OF RS.70,040/-. 6. IN APPEAL, THE CIT(A) HAS NOT ONLY AFFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT ENHANCED THE TOTAL INCOME BY TREATING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AT RS.1,50,000/- AS AGAINST RS.88,330/- WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGAINST THE AFORESAID, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHICH ARE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE INVESTMENT IS DULY EXPLAINABLE ON THE BASIS OF THE SOURCES EXPLAINED BY WAY OF INCOME FROM TUITION FEES AND THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED B Y WAY OF GIFTS ON THE OCCASION OF NAME-CEREMONY AND BIRTHDAY, ETC. OF HER DAUGHTER. 8. WE FIND THAT THE AFORESAID EXPLANATION HAS BEEN DULY CONSIDERED BY THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) NOTICED THAT THE SOURCES OF INC OME ON ACCOUNT OF TUITION FEES, ETC. WAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. FURTHER, IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THERE WAS N O INFLOW OF FUNDS AND THEREFORE EVEN THE OPENING CAPITAL BALANCE OF RS.1, 50,680/- SHOWN BY THE A.Y. 2007-08 ASSESSEE WAS NOT CORROBORATED BY ANY DOCUMENTARY EV IDENCE. THUS, HE HAS REJECTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. WE FIND THAT EVEN BEFORE US THE INFIRMITIES IN T HE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT BY THE CIT(A) CONTINUE TO HOLD . THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO NEGATE THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) AND THE REFORE, THE SAME ARE HEREBY AFFIRMED AND ASSESSEE FAILS ON THIS ASPECT. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT A NO.1664/PN/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IN THE CASE OF MRS. A.M. BI NDRA IS DISMISSED. 11. ITA NOS.1665 & 1666/PN/2011 ARE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE, MR. S.D. BINDRA, WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, NASHIK DATED 30.11.2011 WHICH, IN TURN, HAS ARISEN FROM AN ORDER DATED 24.12.2008 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT, PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEA RS 2005-06 AND 2006-07. 12. IN BOTH THE APPEALS, A COMMON ISSUE HAS BEEN RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONS OF RS.30,000/- AND RS.20,00 0/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07 RESPECTIVELY MADE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE INCURRED DURING THE FORE IGN TOURS. THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A), AGAINST WHICH AS SESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 13. IN BRIEF, THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD VISITED SINGAPORE, MALAYSIA AND DUBAI DURING TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06 AND 2006-07 AS PART OF A TRIP SPONSORED BY GOODY EAR INDIA LTD., AS ASSESSEE WAS ONE OF ITS DEALER. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER NOTICED THAT THE SAID COMPANY HAD SPONSORED THE TRIP ONLY IN RELATION TO AIRFARE, HOTEL ACCOMMODATION, ETC., BUT THE EXPENDITURE ON OTHER A SPECTS OF TRANSPORTATION, A.Y. 2007-08 SIGHTSEEING, SHOPPING, ETC. WERE TO BE BORNE OUT OF PERSONAL FUNDS AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PROVIDED THE DETAILS OF THE DR AWINGS, ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ADDITIONS OF RS.30,000 /- AND RS.20,000/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND 2006-07 ON ACCOUNT OF U NDISCLOSED EXPENDITURE ON FOREIGN TRIPS WERE JUSTIFIABLE. FOR THE SAID RE ASON, THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCES. BEFORE US, THERE IS N O MATERIAL TO INTERFERE WITH THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WHICH ARE HEREBY AFFIRMED. ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSEE FAILS IN BOTH THE APPEALS. 14. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS.1665 & 1666/PN/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND 2006-0 7 IN THE CASE OF MR. S.D. BINDRA ARE DISMISSED. 15. ITA NOS.1667 & 1668/PN/2011 ARE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE, MRS. K.R. BINDRA, WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, NASHIK DATED 27.09.2011 WH ICH, IN TURN, HAS ARISEN FROM AN ORDER DATED 24.12.2008 PASSED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT, PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSM ENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07. 16. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, THE ADDITION IN CHA LLENGE IS A SUM OF RS.1,52,630/- ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN LIC IN TH E NAME OF ASSESSEES SON. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153A OF THE ACT, A SSESSEE FILED A RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.78,650/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPL AIN THE SOURCES OF INVESTMENT OF RS.1,52,630/- MADE IN TAKING OUT LIC IN THE NAME OF HER SON ON 28.03.2005. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT INVESTMENT WAS MADE OUT OF MONEYS RECEIVED BY HER SON ON HIS NAME-CEREMONY, WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROOF. BEFORE THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE REITERATED HER SUBMISSIONS TO THE EFFECT T HAT CASH GIFTS WERE RECEIVED A.Y. 2007-08 ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS SUCH AS HER SONS BIRTHDAY, NA ME-CEREMONY, DIWALI AND LOHRI, ETC. AND ALSO FILED A LIST OF VARIOUS PERSON S WHO ARE STATED TO HAVE GIVEN CASH GIFTS RANGING FROM 1,000/- TO RS.11,000/- ON T HE AFORESAID OCCASIONS. THE CIT(A) WAS NOT IMPRESSED AND ACCORDING TO HIM THE D ETAILS SOUGHT TO BE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE CONCOCTED AND ACCORDI NGLY SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,52,630/-. 17. BEFORE US, THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES HAVE BEEN REITERATED. CONSIDERING THE ORDERS OF THE AUT HORITIES BELOW AND SUBMISSIONS MADE, IN OUR VIEW, THE EXPLANATION REND ERED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE OUTRIGHTLY REJECTED IN TOTO. THE CEREMON IAL OCCASIONS CANVASSED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PLAUSIBLE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SO CIAL CUSTOMS AND THEREFORE IT IS NOT CORRECT TO INSIST ON AN INFALLIBLE PROOF IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME. BE THAT AS IT MAY, IT WOULD BE FAIR AND APPROPRIATE TO ESTIMAT E A SUM OF RS.1,00,000/- WHICH CAN BE SAID TO BE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE OUT OF THE SOURCES SOUGHT TO BE EXPLAINED AND TO THAT EXTENT THE ADDITION OF RS.1,52,630/- SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) IS REDUCED. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS SET-ASIDE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RETAIN ONLY AN ADDITION OF R S.52,630/- AND DELETE THE BALANCE OF RS.1,00,000/-. THUS, ASSESSEE PARTLY SU CCEEDS ON THIS ASPECT IN ITA NO.1667/PN/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 18. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE ONLY ADDITION I N DISPUTE IS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS.81,000/- TOWARDS MA RGIN MONEY PAID TO ONE SSK INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. . THE AFORESAID AMOUNT WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF HER BANK ACCOUNT WHERE IT WAS NOTICED THAT C ASH OF RS.20,000/- AND RS.61,000/- WAS DEPOSITED PRIOR TO MAKING OF SUCH P AYMENT TO SSK INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. . THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE CASH WAS GIVEN TO HER AS GIFT BY SHRI A.J. BINDRA, WHO HAD D ECLARED RS.4,25,000/- AS HIS ADDITIONAL INCOME U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT TO COVER TH E SAID GIFT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE SAID EXPLANATION ON THE GROUND THAT NEITHER SUCH A.Y. 2007-08 TRANSACTION WAS NOTICED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI A.J. BINDRA AND NOR THE SAME WAS DECLARED BY SHRI A.J. BINDRA IN THE CASH-F LOW STATEMENT FURNISHED AND ALSO THAT SUCH MENTION OF GIFT WAS ABSENT IN TH E DECLARATION MADE U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, A SUM OF RS.81,000 /- WAS TREATED AS AN UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 19. THE CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE ACTION OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE REMAINE D UNSUBSTANTIATED. AFTER HAVING HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THE CIT(A) INASMUC H AS THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIATION OF THE EXPLANATION SOUGHT TO BE CANV ASSED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, ASSESSEE FAILS ON THIS GROUND IN ITA NO.1668/ PN/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 20. IN THE RESULT, WHEREAS THE APPEALS OF THE ASSES SEE IN THE CASE OF MRS. K.R. BINDRA IN ITA NO.1667/PN/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2005-06 IS PARTLY ALLOWED THAT OF ITA NO.1668/PN/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IS DISMISSED. 21. RESULTANTLY, THE CAPTIONED FIVE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISPOSED- OFF, AS ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH JANUARY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (R.S. PADVEKAR) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE, DATED : 17 TH JANUARY, 2014 SUJEET A.Y. 2007-08 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : - 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A)II, NASHIK; 4) THE CIT-II, NASHIK; 5) THE DR, A BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., PUNE