Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8994 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
10 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
23-06-2016
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Bench Allotted
A
Next Hearing Date
04-04-2016
Assessment Year
2011-2012
Appeal Filed On
03-08-2015
Judgement Text
, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . ! , ' # $ [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NOS. 1748 TO 1754/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 TO 2011-12 SHRI T. RAMESH NO.24, PLOT NO.481A, 5 TH TRUST CROSS STREET MANDAVELIPAKKAM CHENNAI 600 028 VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE II(2) CHENNAI [PAN AFLPR 2920 Q ] ( %& / APPELLANT) ( '(%& /RESPONDENT) ./ I.T.A.NOS. 1755 TO 1761/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 TO 2011-12 SMT. B. SRIDEVI NO.24, PLOT NO.481A, 5 TH TRUST CROSS STREET MANDAVELIPAKKAM CHENNAI 600 028 VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE II(2) CHENNAI [PAN AAYPS 8203 M ] ( %& / APPELLANT) ( '(%& /RESPONDENT) ./ I.T.A.NOS. 1762 TO 1768/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 TO 2011-12 SMT. B. UMADEVI AH 102, 4 TH LANE 7 TH MAIN ROAD ANNANAGAR CHENNAI 600 040 VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE II(2) CHENNAI [PAN AAAPU 5923 G ] ( %& / APPELLANT) ( '(%& /RESPONDENT) ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 2 -: ./ I.T.A.NOS. 1769 TO 1775/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 TO 2011-12 SMT. V. LAKSHMI A.H.102, 4 TH LANE, 7 TH MAIN ROAD, ANNANAGAR CHENNAI 600 040 VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE II(2) CHENNAI [PAN AABPL 9966 H ] ( %& / APPELLANT) ( '(%& /RESPONDENT) ./ I.T.A.NO. 2068/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2011-12 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE II(2) CHENNAI VS. SMT. LAKSHMI BENGARU A.H.102, 4 TH LANE, 7 TH MAIN ROAD, ANNANAGAR CHENNAI 600 040 ( %& / APPELLANT) ( '(%& /RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R.M. NARAYANAN & SHRI N.K. RAJENDRAN, CAS DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 04 - 04 - 2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 - 0 6 - 2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ALL THE APPEALS OF THE FOUR INDEPENDENT ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS)-19, CHENNAI FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005 -06 TO 2011-12. THE REVENUE HAS ALSO FILED APPEAL IN THE CASE OF SM T. V. LAKSHMI, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARISE FOR ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 3 -: CONSIDERATION IN ALL THE APPEALS, WE HEARD THEM TOG ETHER AND DISPOSING OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE FIRST COMMON ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN ALL THE APPEALS IS CLASSIFICATION OF INCOME ON SALE OF COCO NUTS. 3. SHRI R.M. NARAYANAN, LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES, SHRI T. RAMESH, SON -IN-LAW, SMT. B. SRIDEVI AND SMT. B. UMADEVI, DAUGHTERS AND SMT. V. LAKSHMI, WIFE OF SHRI G. BANGARU, A RENOWNED SPIRITUAL MAN, WHO IS F OUNDER OF M/S ADHIPARASAKTHI CULTURAL MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL AND CHA RITABLE TRUST AT MELMARUVATHUR. THERE WAS A SEARCH OPERATION IN T HE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEES ON 2.7.2010. CONSEQUENT TO THE NOTICE IS SUED U/S 153A OF THE ACT, ALL THE ASSESSEES RETURNED AGRICULTURAL I NCOME ON SALE OF COCONUTS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, ALL THE ASSESSEES ARE CULTIVATING COCONUT TREES. COCONUTS HARVESTED FROM THE COCONUT TREES WERE SOLD AND THE SAME WAS CLASSIFIED AS AGRICULTUR AL INCOME. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED 50% OF THE AMOUNT ON SALE OF COCONUTS AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND THE REMAI NING 50% WAS TAKEN AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSEES ARE NOT DOING ANY BUSINESS. ALL THE FOUR ASSESSEES ARE CULTIVATING COCONUTS, THEY ARE SELLING THE COCONUTS WHICH WERE CULTIVATED BY THEM. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ALL ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 4 -: THE ASSESSEES ARE BASICALLY DOING AGRICULTURAL ACT IVITY, THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE SALE PRICE OF THE COCONUTS HAS TO BE NECESSA RILY CLASSIFIED AS INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE. THE ASSESSEES FILED THE C OPIES OF ADANGAL EXTRACTS AND THE CERTIFICATES FROM THE VILLAGE ADMI NISTRATIVE OFFICER TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED 50% OF THE INCOME ON SALE OF COCONU TS AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE HOLDING OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THE CULTIVATION OF COCONUT TREES IS ALSO NOT DOUBTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT CORRECT IN CLASSIFYING 50% OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF COCONUTS AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. HOWEVER, ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEES, THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS WITH REGARD TO THE EX TENT OF INCOME FROM SALE OF PADDY, COCONUTS, GROUNDNUT ETC, HE HAS TO N ECESSARILY RESTRICT THE INCOME TO 20%. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT(A) DIRECTE D THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAKE 80% OF THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE AND BALANCE 20% WAS DIRECTED TO BE TAKEN AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENT ATIVE, COCONUT IS A AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE HENCE, THE INCOME ON SALE OF COCONUT HAS TO BE NECESSARILY TREATED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THEREF ORE, THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE INCOME TO 80%. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, LD. DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT CULTIVATION OF ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 5 -: COCONUT TREE IS NOT DOUBTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. REFERRING TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE, SMT. B. UMADEVI CLAIMS THAT SHE WAS CULTIVATING 53.12 ACRES OF LAND. HOWEVER, THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER CERTIFIED THAT T HE LAND HOLDING OF SMT. B. UMADEVI WAS 25 ACRES. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF SHRI T. RAMESH, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THE LAND HOLDING AT 5.5 ACRES. HOW EVER, NO SUPPORTING MATERIAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. I N THE CASES OF SMT. B. SRIDEVI AND SMT. V. LAKSHMI ALSO THERE IS A DIFF ERENCE OF LAND HOLDING AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE CERTIFI CATE GIVEN BY THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER. THEREFORE, THERE W AS A DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO AREA OF CULTIVATION SAID TO BE MADE BY AL L THE ASSESSEES. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS TO NECESSARILY ESTIMATE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME ON THE BASIS OF TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEES FILED SOME MATERIAL TO INDICATE EARNING OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER BY KEEPING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED IN THE EARLIER ASSESSM ENT YEARS, ESTIMATED AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF ` 12,000/- PER ACRE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 TO 2007-08. HOWEVER, FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EARS 2008-09 TO 2010-11, THE SAME WAS ESTIMATED AT ` 13,000/- PER ACRE. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, THE INCOME WAS ESTIMATED A T ` 14,000/- PER ACRE. IN VIEW OF THIS DEFICIENCY, THE CIT(A) ESTIM ATED THE AGRICULTURAL ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 6 -: INCOME AT 80% OF WHAT WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE S. THE BALANCE 20% WAS TAKEN AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 5. IN THE CASE OF SMT. V.LAKSHMI, THE CIT(A) ESTIMATED THE INCOME ON SALE OF COCONUTS AT ` 11000/- PER ACRE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 TO 2007-08, ` 13,000/- PER ACRE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND ` 15,000/- PER ACRE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE LANDHOLDINGS. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD INDICATES THE LAND HOLDINGS OF ALL THE F OUR ASSESSEES AND THE CULTIVATION MADE THEREON. HOWEVER, AS RIGHTLY SUBM ITTED BY THE LD. DR, THERE WAS VARIANCE FROM THE CERTIFICATE GIVEN B Y THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND THE CLAIM MADE BY THE AS SESSEES. THEREFORE, IT HAS TO BE FIRST ASCERTAINED AS TO WHA T IS THE ACTUAL AREA OF LAND CULTIVATED BY ALL THE ASSESSEES. UNLESS THE AREA OF LAND CULTIVATED BY ALL THE ASSESSEES ARE ASCERTAINED, IT MAY NOT B E POSSIBLE TO ESTIMATE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IN THESE CASES, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THEY HAVE CULTIVATED COCONUTS, PADDY AND OTHER CROPS. THE DISPUTE IS WITH REGARD TO CULTIVATION OF COCONUTS. THE CIT(A) ESTIMATED 80% OF THE INCOME FROM SALE OF COCONUTS AND THE BAL ANCE 20% AS ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 7 -: INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT 60-70 COCONUT TREES CAN BE PLANTED IN AN ACRE OF LAND. E ACH COCONUT TREE WOULD YIELD 10-15 COCONUTS IN A SPAN OF TWO MONTHS. IN THE CASE OF SHRI T. RAMESH, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT 5.5 ACRES OF LAND WAS USED FOR CULTIVATION OF COCONUTS. IN THE CASE OF SMT. B . UMADEVI EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT 53.21 ACRES OF LAN D WAS USED FOR CULTIVATION, THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER CER TIFIED THAT ONLY 25 ACRES OF LAND WAS ACTUALLY CULTIVATED. THERE IS ALS O DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE LAND HOLDINGS OF SMT. B. SRIDEVI AND SMT. V. LAKSHMI. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPIN ION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL FIRST DETERMINE THE ACTUAL AREA OF CULTIVATION DONE BY THE ASSESSEES. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO REFERR ED TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS K.S. IMAM SAHEB, [1969] 71 ITR 742, AND FOUND THAT INCOME FROM SALE OF COCONUTS DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 7. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENT OF THE MADRAS HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF K.S. IMAM SAHEB(SUPRA). IN THE CASE BEFORE THE MADRAS HIGH COURT, THE AGRICULTURIST WHO CULTIVATE D COCONUTS LEASED OUT THE COCONUT THOPE TO A COCONUT DEALER. IN FACT, THE COCONUT DEALER TOOK THE COCONUT TREES ON LEASE FOR A STIPULATED PE RIOD. AS PER THE LEASE AGREEMENT, THE COCONUT DEALER HAS TO ENJOY TH E FRUITS OF THE COCONUT TREES ON PAYMENT OF A FIXED SUM. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 8 -: AFTER REFERRING TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE PRIVY COUNCI L IN CIT VS KAMAKSHYA NARAYAN SINGH [1948] 16 ITR 325, THE MADR AS HIGH COURT FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE INCOME AN D THE LAND IN WHICH THE COCONUT WAS CULTIVATED. THE COCONUT DEALE R TOOK THE LAND ON LEASE ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PLUCKING THE COCONUTS AND NOT FOR CULTIVATION/MAINTENANCE OF THE COCONUT TREES. ACCO RDINGLY, THE MADRAS HIGH COURT FOUND THAT INCOME ON SALE OF COCONUTS IN THE HANDS OF THE COCONUT DEALER WHO TOOK THE LAND ON LEASE FOR PLUCK ING THE COCONUTS CANNOT BE TREATED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IN THE C ASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE THEMSELVES CULTIVATED THE LAND. THEY ARE NOT COCONUT DEALERS. THE ASSESSEES BEING THE AGRICULTURISTS S OLD THE COCONUTS FROM THE TREES WHICH WERE CULTIVATED AND MAINTAINED BY THEM, THEREFORE, THE JUDGMENT OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF K.S.IMAM SAHEB(SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE AT ALL. H ENCE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ENTIRE INCOME ON SALE OF COCONUTS HAS TO BE NECESSARILY TREATED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOM E. HOWEVER, SINCE THERE IS A DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE AREA OF CULTI VATION, THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RE-EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND T HE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE L IMITED PURPOSE OF VERIFYING THE ACTUAL AREA OF CULTIVATION DONE BY TH E ASSESSEES AND THEREAFTER DETERMINE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEES ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 9 -: ON SALE OF COCONUTS. IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT THE ENT IRE INCOME ON SALE OF COCONUT HAS TO BE TREATED ONLY AS AGRICULTURAL INCO ME AND NOT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 8. THE NEXT COMMON ISSUE IN ALL THE APPEALS IS WITH R EGARD TO DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 9. SHRI R.M.NARAYANAN, LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AUDIT FEE AND ACCOUNTING CHARGES PAI D BY THE ASSESSEES WAS DISALLOWED U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT TDS WAS NOT DEDUCTED. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESE NTATIVE, TDS WAS NOT DEDUCTED BY ALL THE ASSESSEES. HOWEVER, THE R ECIPIENT CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT HAS PAID THE TAXES AND THE COPIES OF TH E RELEVANT FORM 26A WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES TO SH OW THAT THE RECIPIENT HAS ALREADY PAID THE TAXES. REFERRING TO SECOND PROVISO TO SEC. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE S UBMITTED THAT THE PARLIAMENT INTRODUCED SECOND PROVISO TO SEC. 40(A)( IA) OF THE ACT BY FINANCE ACT, 2012 WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2013. IN VI EW OF THIS SECOND PROVISO TO SEC. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT WHEN THE RECIP IENT PAID THE TAXES, IT SHALL BE DEEMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED AND PAID THE TAXES ON THE AMOUNT PAID. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENT ATIVE, THIS PROVISO IS RETROSPECTIVELY APPLICABLE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE ARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REP RESENTATIVE, NO ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 10 -: DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE PLACED HIS RELIANC E ON THE DECISION OF DELHI BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ANSAL LAND MARK TOWNSHIP P. LTD [2015] 61 TAXMANN.COM 45(DELHI) AND ALSO THE DECISION OF BANGALORE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN M/S RAVI SPICE PROCESSORS P. LTD VS ACIT IN I.T.A.NO.426/BANG/2014 . 10. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, LD. DR SUB MITTED THAT ADMITTEDLY TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESS EES WHILE MAKING PAYMENT TO THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, THEREFORE, THE PROVISION OF SEC. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT WOULD BE APPLICABLE. REFERRIN G TO SECOND PROVISO TO SEC. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME WAS INTRODUCED BY THE PARLIAMENT WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2 013, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSI DERATION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, SECOND PROVISO TO SEC. 40( A)(IA) OF THE ACT IS PROSPECTIVE IN OPERATION, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT I S NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE PROFESSIONAL CHARGES ARE PAID WITHOUT DEDUCTING TAX. THE RECIPIENT CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT HAS ALSO ADMITTEDLY PAID THE T AXES. THE QUESTION ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHEN THE RECIP IENT PAID THE TAXES ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 11 -: EVEN THOUGH THE TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESS EES, WHETHER THAT WOULD AMOUNT TO SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE OF SEC. 40(A) (IA) OF THE ACT? THE PARLIAMENT IN THEIR WISDOM INTRODUCED SECOND PR OVISO TO SEC. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT BY FINANCE ACT, 2012 WITH EFFE CT FROM 1.4.2013 TO TREAT THE TAXES PAID BY THE RECIPIENT AS SUFFICIEN T COMPLIANCE OF SEC. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS THAT FINANCE ACT 2012 WAS EFFECTIVE FROM 1.4.201 3, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT APPLICABLE RETROSPECTIVELY FOR THE EARLIER ASSE SSMENT YEARS. THIS ISSUE WAS EXAMINED BY THE DELHI BENCH OF THIS TRIBU NAL IN ANSAL LAND MARK TOWNSHIP PL LTD (SUPRA) AND FOUND THAT SE COND PROVISO TO SEC. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IS APPLICABLE FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS ALSO. THEREFORE, WHEN THE RECIPIENT PAID THE TAXES, THERE IS NO NEED FOR ANY DISALLOWANCE. IN FACT, THE DELHI TRIBUNAL FOUND TH AT SECOND PROVISO TO SEC. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT HAS RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT IN OPERATION, THEREFORE, IT IS APPLICABLE FOR ALL EARLIER ASSESSM ENT YEARS. IN FACT, THE DELHI HIGH COURT CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE DELHI B ENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL. IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BEN CH IN ANSAL LAND MARK TOWNSHIP P. LTD.(SUPRA), THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF T HE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT SECOND PROVISO TO SEC. 40(A)(IA) OF TH E ACT IS NOT RETROSPECTIVE IN OPERATION, THEREFORE, IT IS APPLIC ABLE FOR ALL EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. SINCE THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE TAXES PAID BY THE RECIPIENT PROFESSIONAL, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 12 -: OFFICER U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE IN ALL THE FOU R CASES. 12. IN THE CASE OF SHRI T. RAMESH, THE ASSESSEE HAS TA KEN A GROUND WITH REGARD TO INSUFFICIENT DRAWINGS FOR ASS ESSMENT YEARS 2005- 06 TO 2011-12. 13. SHRI R.M NARAYANAN, LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF ` 1,80,000/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 FOR INSUFFICIENT DRAWINGS. SIMILARLY, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF ` 2,50,000/-. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, AN ADDITION OF ` 2,98,000/- WAS MADE. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF ` 2,45,000/-. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THE ASSES SING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF ` 2,90,000/-. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, THE ASSES SING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF ` 1,88,000/- AND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011- 12, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION OF ` 3,35,000/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS F ILED THE DETAILS OF THE DRAWINGS AND EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO CONSIDER THE COMBINED D RAWINGS OF THE ENTIRE FAMILY. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 13 -: DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE FOR INSUFFI CIENT DRAWINGS. 14. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, LD. DR SUBM ITTED THAT THE DRAWINGS FOR FAMILY EXPENDITURE SHOWN BY T HE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE DAY TODAY AFFAIRS, THEREFORE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY CONSIDERING THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE S FAMILY, FOUND THAT A REASONABLE ESTIMATION HAS TO BE MADE. ACCORDINGLY, BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE PRICE INFLATION FOR EVERY YEAR , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY ESTIMATED THE AMOUNT WHICH IS ACTUALLY REQUIRED FOR MEETING THE EXPENDITURE OF THE FAMILY. THE CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING HE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, FOUND THAT THE EST IMATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED. 15. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FR OM THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CULTIVATING LANDS AND ALSO EARNING AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CULTIVATING PADDY, COCONUT AND SOME OTH ER CROPS. EVEN THOUGH SPECIFIC DETAILS OF CROPS WHICH WAS SAID TO BE CULTIVATED IS NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS ENGAGED HIMSELF IN CULTIVATION. THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE FOR MAINTAINING THE FAMILY WOULD BE MET FROM THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE H ARVESTED BY THE ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 14 -: ASSESSEE. IN OTHER WORDS, PADDY AND OTHER VEGETABL ES WOULD BE VERY MUCH AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS OWN FIELD, THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE FOR DAY-TO-DAY MAINTENANCE MAY BE VERY LESS WHEN COMPARED TO A NON-AGRICULTURIST. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, WHILE ESTIMATING THE DRAWINGS FOR THE FAMILY EXPENDITURE FAILED TO CONSIDER THE BACKGROUND OF THE AGRICULTURISTS WHO ARE ABLE T O MANAGE THEIR AFFAIRS FROM THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WHICH WAS CUL TIVATED BY THEM. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPIN ION THAT THE DRAWINGS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE MORE THAN SUFFI CIENT FOR MEETING THEIR DAY TODAY AFFAIRS. MOREOVER, AS RIGHTLY SUBM ITTED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE COMBINED DRAWINGS OF THE FAMILY HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. THE COMBINED DRAWINGS OF THE F AMILY AND THE BACKGROUND OF THE AGRICULTURISTS WOULD SHOW THAT TH E DRAWINGS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE MORE THAN SUFFI CIENT FOR MEETING HE EXPENDITURE, THEREFORE, NO FURTHER ADDITION IS C ALLED FOR. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHOR ITIES AND THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) FOR INSUFFICIENT DRAWINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 TO 2011-12 IS DELETED. ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 15 -: 16. IN THE CASE OF SHRI T. RAMESH, THE ASSESSEE HAS TA KEN A GROUND WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) OF T HE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09, 2009-10 AND 2011-12. 17. SHRI R.M. NARAYANAN, LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS THE PROPRIETOR OF M /S SHREE ENTERPRISES. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, M/S SHREE ENTERPRISES IS BASICALLY INVOLVED IN REAL ESTATE BU SINESS. DURING THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, M/S SHREE ENTERPRISES PU RCHASED LANDS FROM LOCAL VILLAGES. THE COST OF THE LAND WAS CLAI MED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE COST OF LAND BY WAY OF BEARER CHEQUES. T HE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PAID ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE OF LAND BY WAY OF BE ARER CHEQUES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE DISALLOWING THE PURCHASE PR ICE, HAS DISALLOWED EVEN THE ADVANCE PAYMENT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REP RESENTATIVE, IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE COST OF THE LAND PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ` 38,85,000/-. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALL OWED ` 55,35,000/-. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED ONLY ` 38,85,000/- IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AS PURCHASE OF LAND. ` 7,50,000/- WAS PAID TOWARDS ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE OF LAND AND IN FACT A SUM OF ` 4 LAKHS WAS PAID TOWARDS REFUND OF ADVANCE RECEIVED FOR SALE OF LAND. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 16 -: PAID ANOTHER SUM OF ` 5 LAKHS ON 3.12.2010 TO ONE SHRI ELUMALAI. HOWEVER, THIS PAYMENT DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THE ASSE SSEE. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED LAND FROM MS. KANNIAMMAL FO R ` 14,70,000/- AND ANOTHER PIECE OF LAND FOR ` 24,15,000/- FROM MS.ELUMALI. SINCE THE VENDORS DO NOT HAVE BANK ACCOUNT, THEY INSISTED THE PAYMENT BY WAY OF CASH. HOWEVER, IN ORDER TO HAVE BETTER CONTROL OVER THE PAYMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS ISSUED BEARER CHEQUES. THEREFORE , THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE PAYME NT OF PURCHASE PRICE BY BEARER CHEQUES IS EXEMPTED UNDER RULE 6DD OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, REJECTE D THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOUND THAT THE ENTIRE PAYMENT WAS IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 40A(3) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRE SENTATIVE, THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS ADVANCE AND R EFUND OF ADVANCE CANNOT BE TREATED AS PURCHASE PRICE OF THE LAND. MOREOVER, THE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO THE VENDORS ON THEIR INSIST ENCE AS THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY BANK ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) I S NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT. 18. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI P RADHAKRISHNAN, LD. DR SUBMI TTED THAT ANY AMOUNT PAID BY WAY OF CASH EXCEEDING ` 20,000/- HAS TO BE DISALLOWED U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE I S ENGAGED HIMSELF IN ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 17 -: REAL ESTATE BUSINESS AND WHAT WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IS STOCK-IN-TRADE. THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE LAND WHI CH WAS TREATED AS STOCK-IN-TRADE WAS CLAIMED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE ASSESSEE IS EXPECTED TO PAY THE AMOUNT BY CROSSED CHEQUE OR CROSSED DEMAND DRAFT IN CASE THE AMOUNT EXCEEDS ` 20,000/-. IN THIS CASE, EVEN THOUGH THE AMOUNT WAS CLAIMED TO BE PAID BY CHEQUE, IT WAS NOT PAID THROUGH CROSSED CHEQUE OR DEMAND DR AFT. SINCE IT WAS PAID BY BEARER CHEQUES, THERE IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CLIMS THAT T HE VENDORS INSISTED THE PAYMENT IN CASH SINCE THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY BANK ACCOUNT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, NO VENDOR WILL INSIST FOR CASH PAYMENT WHEN THE PURCHASE PRICE WAS MORE THAN LAKHS OF RUPEES. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE VENDORS INSISTED FO R PAYMENT IN CASH IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT, THEREFORE, THE SAME WAS RIGHTLY RE JECTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. REFERRING TO THE ADVANCE SAID T O BE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) DIRE CTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE WITH REGARD TO ADVANCE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS PAYMENT OF SO CALLED ADVANCE ALSO WITH REGARD TO PURCHASE OF LAND AS STOCK-IN-TRADE, THERE FORE, THE SAME HAS ALSO TO BE PAID BY CROSSED CHEQUE OR DEMAND DRAFT. INSPITE OF THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION AND THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT FILED ANY ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 18 -: APPEAL. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT HAVE ANY G RIEVANCE WITH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER. 19. NOW COMING TO THE PAYMENT OF ` 5 LAKHS ON 3.12.2010, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IT DOES NOT PERTAIN TO HIM. H OWEVER, THE FACT REMAINS THAT IT WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY. WH EN THE ASSESSEE PAID ` 5 LAKHS TO SHRI ELUMALAI ON 3.12.2010, IT IS FOR T HE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN HOW IT DOES NOT PERTAIN TO HIM. IN THE ABS ENCE OF ANY MATERIAL, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDI TION. 20. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AD MITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE IS PROPRIETOR OF M/S SHREE ENTERPRISES. IN FACT, M/S SHREE ENTERPRISES IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTA TE. DURING THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITY, THE ASSESSEE PURC HASED LAND AS STOCK- IN-TRADE. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE PURC HASE PRICE OF THE LAND THROUGH BEARER CHEQUE. SEC. 40A(3) OF THE ACT CLEA RLY MANDATES THAT THE EXPENDITURE, IF ANY, EXCEEDS ` 20,000/-, IT HAS TO BE PAID ONLY BY CROSSED CHEQUE OR DEMAND DRAFT. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE PURCHASE PRICE THROUGH BEARER CHEQUES. THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE VENDORS INSISTED FOR CASH PAYMENT SINCE THEY DO NOT HAVE BANK ACCOUNT, IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY ANY MATE RIAL EVIDENCE. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. DR, WHEN THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE LAND ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 19 -: EXCEEDS LAKHS OF RUPEES, NO ONE WOULD INSIST FOR PA YMENT IN CASH. RECEIVING CASH MAY NOT BE SAFE FOR THE VENDORS OF T HE LAND. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT VENDORS INSISTED FOR PAYMENT OF PURCHASE PRICE BY CASH WAS RIGHTY REJECT ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADVANCE OF REFUND RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR SALE OF LAND. AS RIGHTLY SUBM ITTED BY THE LD. DR, WHEN THE PAYMENT WAS MADE IN ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE O F THE LAND, THE SAME HAS ALSO TO BE CONSIDERED AS EXPENDITURE HENCE , THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3) WOULD COME INTO OPERATION. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF ` 4 LAKHS. IN RESPECT OF THE ADVANCE OF ` 7,50,000/- AND ` 5 LAKHS SAID TO BE PAID TO SHRIU ELUMALAI, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT( A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE. EVEN THOUGH THE ASSES SEE CLAIMS THAT THE TRANSACTION RELATING TO SHRI ELUMALAI DOES NOT PERTAIN TO HIM, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE BY HIM AND T HERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE PAYMENT DOES NOT RELATE T O HIM. IF THE PAYMENT DOES NOT RELATE TO HIM, IT IS NOT KNOWN WHY THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID ` 5 LAKHS ON 3.12.2010. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLAN ATION FOR PAYMENT OF ` 5 LAKHS TO SHRI ELUMALAI ON 3.12.2010, THIS TRIBU NAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY PRESUMED THAT THE PAYMENT WAS FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. THEREFO RE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. THIS ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 20 -: TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH T HE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 21. THE ASSESSEE SHRI T. RAMESH HAS TAKEN ANOTHER GROU ND WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF ` 5 LAKHS U/S 68 OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 22. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED UNSECURED LOAN OF ` 10 LAKHS FROM HIS FATHER SHRI K.THANIKACHALAM. THE ASSESSE E HAS ALSO PRODUCED CONFIRMATION LETTER BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LOAN CREDITOR W AS NOT PROVED. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, WHEN THE ASSE SSEE HAS PRODUCED CONFIRMATION LETTER, IT IS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TO EXAMINE FURTHER AND FIND OUT WHETHER IN FACT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECE IVED THE LOAN AS CLAIMED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FURTHER EXAMINATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE. 23. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, LD. DR SUBM ITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER THAT A SUM OF ` 10 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED FROM HIS FATHER AS UNSECURED LOAN. A SIMILAR CLAIM WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE RECEIVED A SUM OF ` 32 LAKHS FROM HIS BROTHER, SHRI T. SUPREME. ACCORDING TO TH E LD. ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 21 -: REPRESENTATIVE, IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR A ND IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACT ION. IN FACT, THE CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND 2008-09 AFTER VERIFICAT ION. REFERRING TO THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. DR SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE RECEIVED A SUM OF ` 5 LAKHS FROM HIS WIFE, SMT. B.SRIDEVI. HOWEVER, THE BALANCE SHEET OF SMT . B. SRIDEVI REFLECTS A CONTRA ADVANCE OF ` 7,50,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE ON 31.3.2008. IN VIEW OF THE CONFLICTING CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE SHRI T. RAMESH, AND HIS WIFE, SMT. B. SRIDEVI, ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 24. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF ` 5 LAKHS TOWARDS LOAN CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. FROM THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, IT APPEARS T HAT THE ASSESSEE SHRI T. RAMESH BORROWED A LOAN OF ` 5 LAKHS FROM HIS WIFE. HOWEVER, THE BALANCE SHEET OF SMT. B. SRIDEVI REFLECTS ADVAN CE OF ` 7,50,000/-. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED ADVAN CE FROM HIS WIFE SMT. B. SRIDEVI. SMT. B. SRIDEVI IS ALSO HAVING IN DEPENDENT SOURCE OF ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 22 -: INCOME. SHE IS ALSO AN INDEPENDENT ASSESSEE. SHE IS ALSO HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT SHRI T. RAMESH WOULD HAVE RECEIVED A L OAN OF ` 5 LAKHS FROM HIS WIFE, SMT. B. SRIDEVI. WHEN SMT B. SRIDEV I IS HAVING INDEPENDENT SOURCE OF INCOME, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE IS NO REASON TO DOUBT THE CLAIM OF LOAN SAID TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS WIFE. THEREFORE , THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EXTENT OF ` 5 LAKHS IN THE HANDS OF SHRI T. RAMESH IS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AU THORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF ` 5 LAKHS MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 25. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THE ASSESSEE, SHRI T. RAMESH HAS TAKEN ONE GROUND WITH REGARD TO UNPROVED LOANS IN SHREE ENTERPRISES TO THE EXTENT OF ` 45,04,433/-. 26. SHRI R.M. NARAYANAN, LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS V IZ. LOAN OF ` 25 LAKHS RECEIVED FROM SMT. BHARATHI SUNDARAMOORTHY AN D ANOTHER SUM OF ` 5 LAKHS AS LOAN RECEIVED FROM SHRI PRASAD. ACCO RDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI T. RAMESH WOULD PROVE THAT THE LOAN WAS RECEIVED THROUGH BANK ING CHANNELS. ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 23 -: ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE CREDITORS ARE NON-RESIDENT INDIANS, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETE D THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 27. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, LD. DR SUBM ITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED LOAN CREDIT OF ` 25 LAKHS FROM SMT. BHARATHI SUNDARAMOORTHY AND ANOTHER SUM OF ` 5 LAKHS FROM SHRI PRASAD. HOWEVER, NO EVIDENCE WAS FILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF LOANS. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADD ITION. 28. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FRO M THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF ` 25 LAKHS FROM SMT. BHARATHI SUNDARAMOORTHY, AND ANOTHER SUM OF ` 5,04,433/- FROM SHRI PRASAD. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO APPEARS T O HAVE RECEIVED A SUM OF ` 15 LAKHS FROM A BUSINESS CONCERN M/S PEARL BEACH. THE ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM ALL THE TH REE PARTIES. FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IT APPEARS THAT SMT . BHARATHI SUNDARAMOORTHY AND SHRI PRASAD WERE NON-RESIDENT IN DIANS. BOTH OF THEM WERE NOT ASSESSED IN INDIA. APART FROM CONFIR MATION LETTERS FROM SMT. BHARATHY SUNDARAMOORTHY AND SHRI PRASAD, NO OTHER MATERIAL WAS FILED TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE ABOVE CREDITORS. IT IS WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW THAT IF THE A SSESSEE CLAIMS CREDIT, IT ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 24 -: IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE CREDITWORTHIN ESS OF THE CREDITOR, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION APART FROM IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, NO MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE TO EST ABLISH THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS. EVEN THOUGH THE Y ARE NON-RESIDENTS, THEY ARE NOT ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX IN INDIA, THERE FORE, IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO FILE NECESSARY MATERIAL BEFORE THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES TO PROVE THE LOAN CREDITS. SINCE NO MATERIAL WAS FILE D TO ESTABLISH THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS, THIS TRIBUNAL I S OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE A DDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EXTENT OF ` 45,05,433/-. 29. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, THE ASSESSEE SHRI T. RAMESH HAS RAISED AN ISSUE WITH REGARD TO UNPROVED LOAN CR EDIT OF ` 5 LAKHS. 30. SHRI R.M. NARAYANAN, LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE BORROWED ` 30 LAKHS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER VERIFYI NG THE BANK STATEMENT AND THE DETAILS OF THE LENDERS, CONFIRMAT ION LETTERS ETC., FOUND THAT THE CLAIM OF LOAN WAS GENUINE. IN FACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED A REMAND REPORT RECOMMENDING FOR DELETION OF THE ADDITION. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF ` 25 LAKHS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, TH E ENTIRE ` 30 LAKHS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DELETED BY CIT(A). ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 25 -: 31. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, LD. DR SUBM ITTED THAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, THE ASSESSEE CLA IMED UNPROVED LOAN OF ` 30 LAKHS. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT FOUND THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION AFTER VERIFICATION. THE CIT(A) HAS NOT STATED IN THE ORDER THAT EITHER ` 25 LAKHS HAS TO BE DELETED OR THE ENTIRE ` 30 LAKHS HAS TO BE DELETED. THE ASSESSEE HAS BORROWED ` 30 LAKHS. IT IS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CLAIM AND PASS ORDERS AS DIRECTED BY THE CIT(A). THEREFORE, IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY TH AT THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY TO DELETE 25 LAKHS. 32. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED UNPROVED LOAN OF ` 30 LAKHS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER EXA MINING THE CONFIRMATION LETTER, DETAILS OF THE LENDERS, BANK S TATEMENT, ASSESSMENT DETAILS ETC. FOUND THAT THE ADDITION MADE TOWARDS U NPROVED CREDIT CAN BE DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION AFTER VERIFICATION. NOW THE A SSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE DIRECTION IS ONLY WITH REGARD TO ` 25 LAKHS AND NOT WITH REGARD TO THE ENTIRE ` 30 LAKHS, THEREFORE, THE BALANCE ALSO NEEDS TO BE DELETED. ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 26 -: THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE REMAND REPORT RELATES TO THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF ` 30 LAKHS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO CONSIDER THE REMAND REPORT AND AFTER VERIFICATION IF IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BORROWED LOAN OF ` 30 LAKHS, THE SAME HAS TO BE DELETED, IN CASE THE IDENTITY OF THE CRED ITORS, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITO RS ARE PROVED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS MODIFIED AN D THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL EXAMINE THE MATTER IN THE LIGHT OF TH E REMAND REPORT AND IF THE ASSESSEE HAS BORROWED ` 30 LAKHS AND THE DETAILS ARE FURNISHED AS OBSERVED IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), HE SHALL DE LETE THE ADDITION OF ` 30 LAKHS AFTER DUE VERIFICATION. 33. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, THE ASSESSEE SHRI T.R AMESH HAS RAISED A GROUND WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF ` 35 LAKHS BEING THE CASH SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. 34. SHRI R.M NARAYAAN, LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATIO N, AN AMOUNT OF ` 35.61 LAKHS WAS SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE AS SESSEE. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THA T THIS AMOUNT BELONGS TO THREE CONCERNS OF THE FAMILY. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, A SUM OF ` 20 LAKHS BELONGS TO M/S SRIDEVI TRACTORS. IN FACT, M/S SRIDEVI TRACTORS IS OWNED BY THE ASSE SSEES WIFE ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 27 -: SMT.SRIDEVI. ANOTHER SUM OF ` 14,08,000/- BELONGS TO M/S ADHIPARASAKTHI LODGINGS AND ` 1,53,000/- BELONGS TO M/S SHREE ENTERPRISES. THE ASSESSEES WIFE, SMT. B.SRIDEVI IS THE MANAGER OF M/S ADHIPARASAKTHI LODGINGS. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRO DUCED THE EXTRACTS OF THE CASH BOOK OF M/S SRIDEVI TRACTORS A ND ADHIPARASAKTHI LODGINGS FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.4.2010 TO 30.9.2010. THE ENTIRE CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION WAS ACC OUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT WAS PRODUC ED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF ` 35 LAKHS WHICH WAS FOND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. 35. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, LD. DR SUBM ITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, A STATE MENT WAS RECORDED U/S 132 OF THE ACT ON 3.7.2010 AND THE ASSESSEE W AS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE CASH WHICH WAS FOUND DURI NG THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION TO THE EXTENT OF ` 35,25,610/-. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION THAT HE CANNOT OFFER ANY EXPLANATION ABOU T THE SOURCE OF CASH FOUND DURING HE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION AND HE AGREED TO OFFER THE SAME FOR TAXATION. AFTER A LAPSE OF SIX MONTHS, BY LETTER DATED 6.1.2011, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE CASH FOUND DURING THE ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 28 -: COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION BELONGS TO M/S SHREE ENT ERPRISES, SRIDEVI TRACTORS AND ADHIPARASAKTHI LODGINGS. DURING THE C OURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE WAS PROPRI ETOR OF M/S SHREE ENTERPRISES, OMSHAKTHI OFFSET PRINTERS AND GLOBAL FOUNDATION. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DOING REAL ESTATE BUSINESS THROUGH THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM, M/S PEARL BEACH. THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAININ G BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ONLY FOR THE PROPRIETORSHIP FIRMS AND NO BOOKS OF A CCOUNT WAS MAINTAINED FOR THE ABOVE PARTNERSHIP FIRMS. THE A SSESSEES WIFE, SMT. B. SRIDEVI ALSO CLARIFIED DURING THE COURSE OF EXAM INATION U/S 132 AS ON 3.7.2010 THAT NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS MAINTAINED . IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 TO 2010-11, THE CASH ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FROM ` 473 TO ` 33,849/-. EVEN DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF M/S ADHIPARASAKTHI LODGINGS OR SHREE ENTERPRISES WERE P RODUCED. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ONLY THE LEDGER ACCOUNT IN TH E NAME OF CASH B. SRIDEVI BOOK . THE OPENING BALANCE SHOWN IN TH AT BOOK WAS ` 71,203.58 AS ON 1.4.2010. IN THE CASE OF M/S SRIDE VI TRACTORS, THE CASH BOOK DISCLOSES THE CASH BALANCE WHICH WAS BOOS TED BY CREDITS IN THE NAMES OF SEVERAL PERSONS AS ADVANCE RECEIVED FO R PURCHASE OF TRACTORS. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT TRACTORS WERE SOLD EVEN BEFORE THE DATE OF DEMAND DRAFT TAKEN IN FAVOUR OF TRACTORS AND FARM EQUIPMENTS LTD. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED CAS H WITHDRAWAL OF ` ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 29 -: 8 LAKHS, ` 3 LAKHS AND ` 9 LAKHS ON 25.6.2010, 29.6.2010 AND 1.7.2010 RESPECTIVELY. HOWEVER, NO SUCH CASH WITHDRAWAL WAS FOUND IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. SINCE NO EXPLANATION WAS FORTHCOMING FOR KEEPING CASH IN HOME, THE CIT(A) BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECI SION OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL VS CIT, 214 ITR 8 01, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE ASSESSEE, SHRI T. RAMESH ADMITTED THAT IT IS UNACCO UNTED MONEY AND HE OFFERED THE SAME FOR TAXATION. THEREFORE, THE E XPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ABOVESAID AMOUNT BELONGS TO THREE CONCERNS IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY REJECTED TH E EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. 36. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AD MITTEDLY, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND A SUM OF ` 35,25,610/- IN CASH DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS EXAMINED U/S 132 OF THE ACT HE AGREED TO OFFER THE SAME FOR TAXA TION. HOWEVER, AFTER A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE ABOVESAID MONEY BELONGS TO THREE PROPRIETARY CONCERNS. AS R IGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. DR, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAINING ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE PROPRIETARY CONCERNS. IT WAS ALSO CLARIFI ED BY THE ASSESSEES WIFE SMT. B. SRIDEVI. NOW TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 30 -: PROPRIETARY CONCERNS, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION BELONGS TO THE THREE PROPRIETARY CONCERNS TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE ARE PR OPRIETORS. WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS DOING BUSINESS AS PROPRIETOR, IT I S EXPECTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO MAINTAIN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT APART FROM CASH BOOKS. TO ESTABLISH THE AVAILABLE CASH BALANCE, THE ASSES SEE HAS TO PRODUCE NECESSARY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW. WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AN D ADMITTED THAT HE CANNOT OFFER ANY EXPLANATION FOR THE SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPE RATION, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASS ESSEE CANNOT NOW CHANGE HIS STAND AND CLAIM THAT THE MONEY FOUND DUR ING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION BELONGS TO THE THREE PROPRIETARY C ONCERNS. THE MATERIAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUBSTANTIATI NG THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPIN ION THAT IN VIEW OF THE ADMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COUR SE OF SEARCH OPERATION ADMITTING TO OFFER THE SAME FOR TAXATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION. IN THE ABSE NCE OF ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER MATERIAL MAINTAINED BY THE ASSES SEE FOR THE SO CALLED BUSINESS, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERE D OPINION THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MONEY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION BELONGS TO THREE BUSINESS CONCERNS CANNOT BE ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 31 -: ACCEPTED. THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY, THE S AME IS CONFIRMED. 37. IN THE CASE OF SMT. V. LAKSHMI, THE ASSESSEE HAS R AISED A GROUND FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10, 2010-11 AND 2 011-2 WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 38. SHRI R.M. NARAYANAN, LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF ` 13,06,331/- AND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF ` 10,94,500/-. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION O F ` 9,70,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ADVANCE FOR BOOKING PLOT S. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGA GED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE. THE CUSTOMERS WHO ARE WIL LING TO PURCHASE THE PLOT FROM THE ASSESSEE USED TO PAY ADVANCE WHICH W OULD BE NOTED IN THE PLOT BOOKING REGISTER. THIS WAS EXPLAINED BEFO RE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED COPIES OF THE CASH BOOK FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.4.2010 TO 31.3.2011. THE ASSESS EE HAS ALSO FILED COPIES OF THE CONFIRMATION LETTER, DETAILS OF THE A DVANCES RECEIVED FROM THE PROBABLE BUYERS OF THE PLOT, COPIES OF THE SALE DEED TOWARDS PURCHASE OF THE PLOT ETC BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. ACCORDING TO THE ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 32 -: LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEVELOPED A L AYOUT KNOWN AS LAKSHMI NAGAR. IN FACT, THE ADVANCE WAS RECEIVE D FROM SMT. GANGAMMAL AND SMT. SUGANTHINI. THESE TWO PERSONS H AVE PURCHASED PLOTS IN LAKSHMI NAGAR EXTENSION-I AND III, THEREFO RE, THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER. 39. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, LD. DR SUBM ITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, A REGI STER KNOWN AS PLOT BOOKING REGISTER WAS FOUND. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THESE ARE ADVANCES RECEIVED FOR SALE OF PLOTS IN LAKSHMI NAG AR PROJECT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED THAT SHE RECEIVED ADVANCE FRO M SMT. GANGAMMAL AND SMT. SUGANTHINI. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER FOUND THAT THE ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM SMT. GANGAMMAL AND SMT. S UGANTHINI WAS FOR SALE OF PLOT IN LAKSHMI NAGAR EXTENSION I & II I. THE EVIDENCE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION SHOWS T HAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FOR LAKSHMI NAGAR LAYOUT AND NOT FOR LAKSHMI NAGAR EXTENSION LAYOUT. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE DETAILS OF THE PURCHASERS WHO PAID THE MONEY IN RESPECT OF LAKSHM I NAGAR LAYOUT. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADD ITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 40. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. DUR ING THE COURSE OF ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 33 -: SEARCH OPERATION, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND CRE DIT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF ` 10,94,500/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND ` 9,70,000/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. THE CIT(A ) HAS CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF THE SALE DEED COPIES OF SMT. GANGAMMAL AND SMT. SUGANTHINI. SMT. GANGAMMAL AND SMT. SUGANTHINI PURCHASED PLOTS IN L AKSHMI NAGAR EXTENSION I & III PROJECTS. HOWEVER, WHAT WAS FOU ND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION WAS IN RESPECT OF LAKSH MI NAGAR PROJECT. IF THE AMOUNT CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS A DVANCE, IT IS NOT KNOWN WHY THE CUSTOMERS KEEP THE ADVANCE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH A LONG TIME WITHOUT GETTING THE DOCUMENTS REGI STERED. BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FOUND THAT WHAT WAS SAID TO BE RE CEIVED AS ADVANCE IN MANY CASES ARE THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY WAS ULTIMATELY REGISTERED. THE DETAILS OF THE PERSO NS WHO PAID THE ADVANCE VIZ. NAMES AND ADDRESSES ETC. WERE NOT FURN ISHED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. NO CONFIRMATION LETTER WAS ALSO APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN FILED. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY B OOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF ADVANCE SAI D TO BE RECEIVED FOR SALE OF THE PLOT IN LAKSHMI NAGAR PROJECT. M OREOVER, WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS EXAMINED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, SHE NEVER CLAIMED THAT THE AMOUNTS CREDITED IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT WERE RECEIVED FROM THE CUSTOMERS AS ADVANCE. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 34 -: ASSESSEE THATS WHAT WAS CREDITED IN THE BOOKS IS A DVANCE IS ONLY AN AFTERTHOUGHT. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CO NFIRMED THE ADDITION. ACCORDINGLY, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAM E IS CONFIRMED. 41. THE REVENUE HAS ALSO FILED AN APPEAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. V. LAKSHMI, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 42. SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF ` 1,17,47,615/-. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, GOLD JEWELLERY WEIGHING 2135 GMS AND 3 090 GMS WERE FOUND IN THE GROUND AND FIRST FLOOR OF THE RESIDENT IAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER THAT THE JEWELLERY FOUND IN THE GROUND FLOOR BELONGS TO HER AND THE JEWELLERY FOUND IN THE FIRST FLOOR BELONGS TO HER D AUGHTER SMT.B. UMADEVI. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMS THAT SHE HAS FI LED THE WEALTH TAX RETURN. APART FROM GOLD JEWELLERY, 102.655 KG OF S ILVER ARTICLE WAS ALSO FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ABOVE SILVER ARTICLES WERE RECEIVED AS GIFT FROM THE DEVOTEES. THE LD. DR FUR THER POINTED OUT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION ON 26.7.2010, A HUGE DIFFERENCE OF 6338.550 GMS OF GOLD AND 7.85 KG OF SILVER AND 1 20.9 CARAT OF DIAMOND WERE FOUND. AFTER VERIFYING THE GOLD JEWEL LERY, SILVER AND ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 35 -: DIAMOND DISCLOSED IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THERE ARE EXCESS GOLD JEWELLERY, SILVER AND DIAMOND IN THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT SHE HAS PURCHASED GO LD JEWELLERY, SILVER ARTICLES AND DIAMOND WHICH WERE DISCLOSED IN THE WE ALTH TAX RETURN FILED IN THE REGULAR COURSE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALS O SAID TO BE RECEIVED GIFT ON HER BIRTHDAY, WEDDING DAY ETC. THE LD. DR FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT IN FACT THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE DIFFERENCE IN THE GOLD JEWELLERY, SILVER ARTICLES AND DIAMOND AND OFFERED THE SAME AS INCOME OVER AND ABOVE THE INCOME RETURNED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION. INSPITE OF THIS ADMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF ` 85,35,000/- OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF ` 1,17,47,615/-. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED THE EXCESS VALU E OF THE JEWELLERY ON PROTECTIVE BASIS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION WAS MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT A PA RT OF THE JEWELLERY WAS DECLARED FOR TAXATION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010- 11 AND IT WAS SUBJECTED TO TAX. THE REST OF THE JEWELLERY WAS GI FTED TO THE ASSESSEE BY HER HUSBAND, SHRI BANGARU. THE ASSESSEES HUSB AND ADMITTED THE VALUE OF THE JEWELLERY GIFTED TO HER AS INCOME IN H IS RETURN OF INCOME. IN FACT, THE GIFTING OF JEWELLERY BY THE ASSESSEE S HUSBAND TO HER WAS ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 36 -: SUBJECT MATTER OF ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE SETTLEMEN T COMMISSION. THE CIT(A), AFTER EXAMINING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASS ESSEE, FOUND THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE WITH R EGARD TO ACQUISITION OF GOLD JEWELLERY, SILVER ARTICLES AND DIAMOND. NO EVIDENCE WAS ASLSO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO RECEIPT OF GI FT OF GOLD JEWELLERY, SILVER ARTICLES ETC. NO CONFIRMATION LETTER WAS AL SO FILED FROM THE RESPECTIVE DONORS. UNACCOUNTED GOLD JEWELLERY, SIL VER ARTICLES AND DIAMOND WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPER ATION, THEREFORE, THE PRESUMPTION UNDER LAW IS THAT IT BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. SINCE PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE GOLD JEWELLERY, SILVER ARTICL ES AND DIAMOND FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, HAS TO BE AD DED SUBSTANTIVELY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. AFTER OBSERVING A LL THESE THINGS, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER TO THE EXTENT OF ` 85,35,000/- , THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 43. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI R.M. NARAYANAN, LD. REPRESENT ATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH OPERATION, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND GOLD JEWELLERY, SILVE R ARTICLES AND DIAMONDS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER THAT THESE ARE GIFTS RECEIVED FROM DEVOTEES OF HER HUSBA ND AND PART OF THE JEWELLERY WAS ALSO PURCHASED BY HER. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 37 -: THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BY LETTER DATE D 6.1.2011 STATING THAT GOLD JEWELLERY, SILVER ARTICLES AND DIAMONDS W ORTH ` 79,33,814/- WAS RECEIVED AS GIFT FROM FRIENDS AND WELL WISHERS PRIOR TO 30.9.2009 AND THE JEWELLERY AND DIAMOND VALUED AT ` 47,16,622/- WAS RECEIVED AFTER 1.10.2009. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SAME WAS INCLUDED IN THE RETURN FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. HOWEVER, THIS CLAIM WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH CLAIM WAS NOT MADE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION AND NO DETAILS WERE FILED WITH REGARD TO RECEIPT OF GIFT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, GIFTS WERE RECEIVED FROM WELL WISHERS AND DEVOTEES. WHEN THE GIFT WAS RECEIVED FROM DEVOTEES, EXPECTING EVIDENCE/VOUCHER MAY NOT B E PRACTICALLY POSSIBLE. IN FACT, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ENTIR E ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 44. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. DU RING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND GOL D JEWELLERY, SILVER ARTICLES AND DIAMONDS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFOR E THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THESE WERE GIFT RECEIVED FROM WELL WIS HERS AND DEVOTEES. PART OF THE JEWELLERY WAS SAID TO BE RECEIVED FROM HER HUSBAND AS GIFT. HOWEVER, NO MATERIAL EVIDENCE WAS FILED TO SUPPORT THE RECEIPT OF GIFT ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 38 -: FROM THE DEVOTEES AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEES HUSBAN D. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESS EE EXPECTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR RECEIPT OF GIFT FROM DEVOT ES MAY NOT BE PRACTICALLY POSSIBLE. BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT HU GE AMOUNT OF JEWELLERY AND DIAMOND WAS IN FACT DONATED BY THE DE VOTEES AND WELL WISHERS. THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND EXCESS GOLD JEWELLERY DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION AFTER COMPARING THE WEALTH TAX RETURN. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED TO WEALTH TAX REGULARLY. HOWEVER, SHE DID NOT DISCLOSE THE GOLD JEWELLERY, DIAMOND AND SILVER ARTICLES IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN. THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO HAVE F ILED A CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM HER HUSBAND, SHRI G. BANGARU TO THE FAC T THAT HE ADMITTED THE VALUE OF THE GOLD JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF 4 260.300 GMS AND 7.850 KGS OF SILVER AND 67.90 CARATS OF DIAMOND IN THE APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. IT IS NOT KNOWN WHETHER THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ACCEPTED THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND. NO MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE ON RE CORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND WAS IN FACT OFFERED THE SAM E BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OF FICER FOUND THAT THE EXCESS VALUE OF THE GOLD JEWELLERY, SILVER ARTI CLES AND DIAMOND TO THE EXTENT OF ` 1,17,47,615/- IS TO BE ASSESSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS THAT THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 39 -: THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EXTENT OF ` 85,35,000/- OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF ` 1,17,47,615/-. IN FACT, THE CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED A S FOLLOWS AT PAGES 40 & 41 OF HIS ORDER: THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE APPELLANT FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 THAT WAS FILED AFTER THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF SEARCH CANNOT BE TAKEN/ACCEPTED AS EVIDENCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE ACQUISITION/PURCHASE OF GOLD JEWELLERY IN THE YEAR PRIOR TO THE YEAR OF SEARCH A ND ALSO WITH REGARD TO THE ALLEGED CLAIM OF GIFTS OF GOLD/D IAMONDS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSED FACTUAL AND LEGAL PO SITION, I DONT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ACTION OF THE AO IN BRINGING TO TAX THE UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT OF THE APPELLANT IN THE PURCHASE/ACQUISITION OF GOLD JEWELLERY/DIAMONDS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE YEAR OF SEARCH IN A PPELLANTS CASE. AS REGARDS ASSESSING THE INCOME ON PROTECTIV E BASIS FOR THE REASON THAT THE SAME HAD BEEN OFFERED BY TH E APPELLANT IN HER RETURN OF INCOME, NO GRIEVANCE IS CAUSED TO THE APPELLANT AS NO DEMAND OR PENALTY ON THIS COUNT HAS BEEN DETERMINED. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT THE AO CANNOT BRING DOWN THE RETURNED INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE. THE ADDI TION MADE BY THE AO ON PROTECTIVE BASIS, THEREFORE, IS U PHELD AS ONLY THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN THIS REGARD. FURTHER, AS ALREADY HELD ABOVE THE VALUE OF UNACCOUNTED GOLD JEWELLERY/DIAMONDS HAVE RIGHTLY BE EN BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE AO IN APPELLANTS HAND IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS FOUND TO BE OWNER OF THESE ASSETS VIZ. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON THIS ACCOUNT IN THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2011- 12 IS UPHELD. IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION ALREADY MAD E, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT IN THIS RE GARD ARE DISMISSED AS UNSUBSTANTIATED. 45. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE ADDITION MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO THE JEWELLERY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 40 -: 2011-12 IS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). THEREFORE, IT IS NOT KNOWN HOW THE REVENUE CLAIMED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADD ITION TO THE EXTENT OF ` 85,35,000/-. A BARE READING OF THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A) CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IS CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED AS UNSUBSTANTIATED. IN VIEW OF THE CATEGORICAL FINDING OF THE CIT(A), THIS TRIBUNAL I S OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS NO T MAINTAINABLE. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CON FIRMED. 46. IN THE CASE OF SMT. B. UMADEVI, ADDITION OF ` 5,42,943/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN GOLD AND SILVER A RTICLES IS CHALLENGED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 47. SHRI R.M. NARAYANAN, LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOSED TO MA KE AN ADDITION OF ` 5,42,943/- BEING THE VALUE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEE N THE GOLD JEWELLERY DISCLOSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AN D 2006-07. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED 1720 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND 17 KG OF SILVER. IN THE WEALTH R ETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSE D GOLD JEWELLERY ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 41 -: TO THE EXTENT OF 2120 GMS AND 32 KGS OF SILVER. TH E ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HER FAT HER, SHRI G. BENGARU, HAS INNUMERABLE DEVOTEES. THE GOLD JEWELLERY AND S ILVER ARTICLES DECLARED IN THE WEALTH RETURN WAS RECEIVED AS GIFT FROM VARIOUS DEVOTEES OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. SINCE THE GIFT WAS NOT TAXABLE, THE SAME WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE TAXABLE INCOME. SINCE THE GIFT WAS RECEIVED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, THE ASSESSEE MAY N OT BE IN A POSITION TO IDENTIFY THE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE SAME WAS RECE IVED. INSPITE OF THIS EXPLANATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF 400 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND 18 KGS OF SILVER BETWEEN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005 -06 AND 2006-07. THEREFORE, HE VALUED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INVEST MENT BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, SIN CE IT IS A GIFT RECEIVED FROM THE DEVOTEES OF THE ASSESSEES FATHE R, THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 48. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT AFTER VERIFYING THE WEALTH TAX RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THERE WAS A PURCHASE OF 400 GMS OF GOLD JEWELL ERY AND 15 KG OF SILVER FOR WHICH NO PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESS EE. THEREFORE, A PRE-ASSESSMENT NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE C ALLING FOR HER ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 42 -: EXPLANATION WHY THE VALUE OF 400 GMS GOLD JEWELLER Y AND 15 KGS OF SILVER SHOULD NOT BE ADDED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HER FAT HER, A RENOWNED RELIGIOUS PERSONALITY, WAS HAVING INNUMERABLE DEVOT EES AND GOLD AND SILVER ARTICLES WERE RECEIVED BY HIM AS GIFT OVER A PERIOD OF TIME AND THE SAME WAS GIFTED TO HER BY HER FATHER. SINCE IT WAS A GIFT, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE GIFT RECEI VED FROM BLOOD RELATIVES IS EXEMPTED FROM TAXATION. WHEN THE ASS ESSEE RECEIVED GIFT FROM THIRD PARTIES WHO COULD NOT BE IDENTIFIED AS A DMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME HAS TO BE NECESSARILY TREATED AS INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO PAY TAX. SINCE THERE WAS A D IFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESS MENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY FOUN D THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PU RCHASE OF THE DIFFERENTIAL VALUE OF THE GOLD JEWELLERY AND SILVER ARTICLES, THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT THE SAME WAS PURCHASED OUT OF T HE UNEXPLAINED INCOME. 49. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE RE WAS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07 TO THE EXTENT OF 400 GMS GOLD JEWELLERY AND 15 KGS OF SILVER IS ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 43 -: NOT IN DISPUTE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE DIFF ERENCE WAS DUE TO GIFT RECEIVED FROM HER FATHER SHRI BENGARU, WHO IN TURN CLAIMS THE RECEIPT OF GIFT FROM VARIOUS DEVOTEES. THE QUESTIO N ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHEN THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED GIFT F ROM HER FATHER, WHETHER IT IS TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ? IT IS NOBODYS CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED GIFT FROM ANYBO DY. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT GIFT WAS RECEIVED FROM HER FATHER. IT IS ALSO AN ACCEPTED FACT THAT SHRI G. BENGARU, THE ASSESSEES FATHER I S A RENOWNED RELIGIOUS PERSONALITY AND HE HAS INNUMERABLE DEVOTE ES. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEES FATHER OUGHT TO HAVE RECEIVED GOLD JEWEL LERY AND SILVER ARTICLES AS GIFT FROM HIS DEVOTEES. THE GIFT RECEI VED BY SHRI BENGARU FROM HIS OWN DEVOTEES WAS SAID TO BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE IMMEDIATE SOURCE FOR THE ASSESSEE F OR RECEIPT OF GIFT IS HER FATHER AND NOT THE DEVOTEES OF THE ASSESSEES FATHER. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED GIFT FROM HER OWN BLOOD RELATIVE NAMELY, FATHER. THEREFORE, SUCH A GIFT IS NOT TAXA BLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ADDITION OF ` 5,42,943/- IS DELETED. ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 44 -: 50. SMT. B. UMADEVI, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ONE MORE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO ASSESSMENT OF EXCESS JEWELLERY TO TH E EXTENT OF ` 24,68,431/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2011-1 2. 51. SHRI R.M. NARAYANAN, LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASS E SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF ` 8,80828/- ON PROTECTIVE BASIS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. HOWE VER, A SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION WAS MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 A T ` 24,68,431/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE THE EXCESS JEWE LLERY TO THE EXTENT OF ` 8,80,828/- WAS ALREADY OFFERED FOR TAXATION FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF ` 8,80,828/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION. THE BALAN CE AMOUNT TOWARDS THE VALUE OF JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF ` 15,85,603/- ACTUALLY REPRESENT THE GIFT RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS DEVOTEES P RIOR TO 30.9.2009. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM VA RIOUS PERSONS, THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, IT IS NOT TAXABLE. 52. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, LD. DR SUBM ITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, GOLD JE WELLERY, SILVER ARTICLES WERE FOUND FROM THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE PR EMISES OF THE ASSESSEES FATHER, SHRI G. BANGARU ON 2.7.2010. TH E ASSESSEES MOTHER, SMT. V. LAKSHMI WHO WAS PRESENT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION CLAIMS THAT THE SAID JEWELLERY BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE SMT. ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 45 -: B. UMADEVI. AFTER COMPARING THE WEALTH TAX RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THAT OF THE JEWELLERY FOUND DURING TH E COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND THAT THERE WAS EXCESS OF GOLD JEWELLERY, SILVER ARTICLES AND DIAMOND WHICH WAS NO T OFFERED FOR TAXATION. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SUBJECTED TO SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE ACT. . THE ASSESSEES MOTHER SMT. V. LAKSHMI EXPLAINED THE DET AILS OF JEWELLERY FOUND WHICH BELONGS TO SMT. UMADEVI. THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY SEGREGATED THE JEWELLERY RECE IVED AS GIFT PRIOR TO 30.9.2009 AND AFTER THAT DATE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE EXCESS JEWELL ERY FOUND TO THE EXTENT OF 1008.8 GMS GOLD JEWELLERY AND 8.86 CARATS OF DIAMOND CANNOT BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO INCLUDED 1008.8 GMS GOLD JEWELLERY AND DIAMOND TO THE EXTENT OF 8.86 CARATS IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED ONLY 404.4 GMS GOLD JEWELLERY AS HER INCOME ALONGWITH 8.86 CARATS OF DIAMOND IN THE INC OME TAX RETURN. SINCE NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND ABOUT THE GIFT SAID TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 46 -: 53. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. DU RING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION ON 2.7.2010, THE REVENUE AUTHORITI ES FOUND GOLD JEWELLERY, SILVER ARTICLES AND DIAMONDS. THE ASSE SSEES MOTHER CLAIMED BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES THAT THE GOL D JEWELLERY FOUND BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE SMT. B. UMADEVI. THE ASS ESSEE HAS ALSO INCLUDED 1008.8 GMS GOLD JEWELLERY AND DIAMOND TO T HE EXTENT OF 8.86 CARATS IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN FILED FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2010-11. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEES FATHER IS A RENOW NED RELIGIOUS PERSONALITY AND HE RECEIVED GIFT IN THE FORM OF GOL D, SILVER AND DIAMONDS ETC. FROM VARIOUS DEVOTEES. THIS WAS GIFT ED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEES MOTHER SMT. V. LAKSHMI EXPLAINED BE FORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES THAT THE GOLD JEWELLERY FOUND IN THE FI RST FLOOR OF THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI BENGARU BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE SMT. UMADEVI. FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH ON 2.7.2010. FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT ALSO APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF WEALTH FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 INCLUDING 1008.8 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND 8.86 CARATS OF DIA MOND IN HER CAPITAL ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN SHE ADM ITTED ONLY VALUE OF 404.4 GMS GOLD JEWELLERY AND REST OF THE GOLD JE WELLERY WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RETURN FILED BY HER. AS DISCUSSED IN THE CASE OF SMT. V. ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 47 -: LAKSHMI, IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER, THE AS SESSEES FATHER, SHRI G. BENGARU RECEIVED GOLD JEWELLERY, SILVER ARTICLES AN D DIAMOND AS GIFT FROM VARIOUS DEVOTEES WHICH WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSES SEE AS GIFT BY HIM. IN FACT, AT THE TIME OF SEARCH OPERATION, THE ASSE SSEES MOTHER EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT GOLD JE WELLERY FOUND IN THE FIRST FLOOR BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE, SMT. UMADEVI. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE IMME DIATE SOURCE FOR THE GIFT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HER FATHER SHRI G . BENGARU. SINCE THE GIFT WAS RECEIVED FROM A BLOOD RELATIVE, THIS TRIB UNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITIO N FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS RIGHTLY S UBMITTED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE PROTECTIVE ASSESSM ENT WAS MADE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 TO THE EXTENT OF ` 8,80,828/-. HOWEVER, SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION WAS MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2011-12. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS THAT PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT MADE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 TO THE EXTENT OF ` 8,80,828/- WAS PART OF THE SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION MAD E FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE IMMEDIATE SOURCE FOR THE GIFT IS HER FATHE R, THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE GIFT IS EXEMPTED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESS EE. IF AT ALL ANY TAX IS TO BE LEVIED, IT HAS TO BE LEVIED IN THE HANDS O F THE ASSESSEES FATHER SHRI G. BENGARU WHO IS SAID TO HAVE RECEIVED GIFT F ROM HIS DEVOTEES. ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 48 -: IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE TOWARDS EXCESS JEWELLERY FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010- 11 AND 2011-12. 54. IN THE CASE OF SMT. B. SRIDEVI, THE ASSESSEE HAS R AISED A GROUND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WITH REGARD TO U NEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY TO THE EXTENT OF ` 1,94,700/-. 55. SHRI R.M. NARAYANAN, LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED A PIECE OF LAND IN SURVEY NO.107/1 IN MEL MARUVATHUR FROM HER BROTHER SHRI SENTHIL KUMAR FOR A CONSIDERATION OF ` 1,77,000/-. THE REGISTRATION FEE AND STAMP DUTY COMES TO NEARLY ` 1,93,112/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOSED TO ADD ` 1,94,700/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE AMOUNT TO HIS BROTHER. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID ANY MONE Y TO HIS BROTHER FOR PURCHASING THIS LAND. SINCE THE LAND WAS PURCH ASED FROM HER OWN BROTHER AND HE CONFIRMED NO SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE. 56. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, LD. DR SUBM ITTED THAT WHAT WAS EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEES BROTHER O N 9.8.2006 IS A SALE DEED AND NOT A GIFT DEED. THE SALE DEED DISCL OSES THE SALE ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 49 -: CONSIDERATION OF ` 1,77,000/- WHICH WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH . THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER COMPUTING THE STAMP DUT Y, REGISTRATION CHARGES AND OTHER EXPENDITURE, ESTIMATED THE COST O F THE PROPERTY AT ` 1,94,700/-. SINCE THE SALE DEED DISCLOSES THE PAYM ENT OF SALE CONSIDERATION IN CASH, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RI GHTLY MADE THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS RI GHTLY CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). 57. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED A PIECE OF LAND IN SURVEY NO,107/1 IN MEL MARUVATHUR VILLAGE FROM HER BROTHER SHRI SENTHILKUMAR. THE SALE CONSI DERATION DISCLOSED IN THE SALE DEED DATED 9.8.2006 IS ` 1,77,000/-. THE LAND IS CLASSIFIED AS GRAMA NATHAM IN THE REVENUE RECORDS. THE STAM P DUTY, REGISTRATION CHARGES AND OTHER EXPENDITURE INCLUDIN G SALE CONSIDERATION COMES TO ` 1,94,700/-. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THI S TRIBUNAL IS THAT THE LAND WAS PURCHASED FROM HER BROTHER AND HER BROTHER ADMITTED THAT NO CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED. THE F ACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEES BROTHER EXECUTED SALE DEED AND THE SALE DEED DISCLOSES THE RECEIPT OF ` 1,77,000/- TOWARDS SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPE RTY. WHEN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED DISCLOSES RECEIPT OF ` 1,77,000/-, IT IS NOT KNOWN HOW THE ASSESSEES BROTHER NOW CLAIMS TH AT NO MONEY WAS ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 50 -: RECEIVED. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPIN ION THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT LEAD ANY EVIDENCE AGAINST THE CONTENTS OF TH E REGISTERED DOCUMENT ESPECIALLY WHEN THE EXECUTION OF SALE DEED IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THEREFORE, THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S PAID ` 1,77,000/- BESIDES THE STAMP DUTY, REGISTRATION CHARGES AND OT HER EXPENDITURE. THERE CANNOT BE ANY PRESUMPTION IN LAW THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE PROPERTY THROUGH A SALE DEED FREE OF COST FROM HER BROTHER. MERELY BECAUSE THE EXECUTOR OF THE SALE D EED IS THE BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT PAID ANY MONEY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND ACCORDIN GLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 58. SMT. B. SRIDEVI, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ONE MORE GROUND WITH REGARD TO ASSESSMENT OF EXCESS JEWELLERY FOR A SSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2011-12. 59. SHRI R.M. NARAYANAN, LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF ` 8,11,104/- ON PROTECTIVE BASIS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. HOWE VER, A SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION WAS MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 A T ` 29,74,323/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESS EE, THE EXCESS JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF ` 8,11,104/- AND ` 8,22,700/- WAS ALREADY ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 51 -: OFFERED FOR TAXATION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AN D 2011-12 RESPECTIVELY, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF ` 13,14,323/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION. THE BALANCE AMOUNT TOWARDS THE VALUE OF JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF ` 16,60,000/- WAS ACTUALLY OFFERED IN THE HANDS OF SHRI G. BENGARU, F ATHER OF THE ASSESSEE. 60. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, LD. DR SUBM ITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, THE RE VENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND 1884.300 GMS GOLD JEWELLERY IN THE RESIDENTIA L PREMISES AND 1733.800 GRMS GOLD JEWELLERY, 0.48 CARATS OF DIAMON D SILVER ARTICLES IN LOCKER NO.2171 IN KOTHARI SAFE DEPOSITS PVT. LTD. I N THE NAME OF T. RAMESH, HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE. AFTER COMPAR ING THE WEALTH TAX RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THAT OF THE JEWE LLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, THE REVENUE AUTHORI TIES FOUND THAT THERE WAS EXCESS OF GOLD JEWELLERY, SILVER ARTICLES AND DIAMOND WHICH WAS NOT OFFERED FOR TAXATION. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAI NED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SUBJEC TED TO SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH OTHER M EMBERS OF THE FAMILY SEGREGATED THE JEWELLERY RECEIVED AS GIFT PR IOR TO 30.9.2009 AND AFTER THAT DATE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINE D BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE EXCESS JEWELLERY FOUND T O THE EXTENT OF ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 52 -: 1005.000 GMS GOLD JEWELLERY CANNOT BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO INCLUDED 1502 GMS GOLD JEWELLERY IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-1 1. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED ONLY 497 GMS GOLD VALUED AT ` 8,11,104/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 UNDER INCOME FROM OTHER SOU RCES. SINCE NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND ABOUT THE GIFT SAID TO BE REC EIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 61. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. DU RING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION ON 2.7.2010, THE REVENUE AUTHORITI ES FOUND GOLD JEWELLERY, SILVER ARTICLES AND DIAMONDS. THE A SSESSEE HAS ALSO INCLUDED 1502 GMS GOLD IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN F ILED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE S FATHER IS A RENOWNED RELIGIOUS PERSONALITY AND HE RECEIVED GIFT IN THE FORM OF GOLD, SILVER AND DIAMONDS ETC. THIS WAS GIFTED TO THE A SSESSEE. FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IN CLUDING 497 GMS OF GOLD UNDER INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. HOWEVER, SHE ADMITTED ONLY VALUE OF 497 GMS GOLD JEWELLERY AND REST OF THE GOL D JEWELLERY WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RETURN FILED BY HER. AS DISCUSSED IN THE CASE OF SMT. ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 53 -: B. UMADEVI, IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSEES FATHER, SHRI G. BENGARU RECEIVED GOLD JEWELLERY, SILVER ARTICLES AND DIAMOND AS GIFT FROM VARIOUS DEVOTEES WHICH WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSES SEE AS GIFT BY HIM. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT THE IMMEDIATE SOURCE FOR THE GIFT RECEIVED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS HER FATHER SHRI G. BENGARU. SINCE THE GIFT WAS RECEIVED FROM A BLOOD RELATIVE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE RE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATI ON. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESS EE PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 TO THE EXTENT OF ` 8,11,104/-. HOWEVER, SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION WAS MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF TH E CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE IMMEDIATE SOURCE FOR THE RECEIPT OF GIFT I S HER FATHER, THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE GIFT IS EXEMPTED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IF AT ALL ANY TAX IS TO BE LEVIED, IT HAS TO BE LEVIED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES FATHER SHRI G. BENGARU WHO IS SAID TO HA VE RECEIVED GIFT FROM HIS DEVOTEES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE SET A SIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE TOWARDS EXCESS JEWELLERY FOR ASSESSME NT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2011-12. 62. IN THE RESULT, IN THE CASE OF SHRI T. RAMESH, I.T.A .NOS.1748 TO 1750/MDS/2015 AND I.T.A.NO.1753/MDS/2015 ARE ALL OWED FOR ITA NO.1745/15 ETC :- 54 -: STATISTICAL PURPOSES WHEREAS I.T.A.NOS.1751, 1752 A ND 1754/MDS/2015 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. IN TH E CASE OF SMT. B. UMADEVI, I.T.A.NOS.1762 TO 1768/MDS/2015 ARE ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. IN THE CASE OF SMT. B.SRIDEVI, I.T.A.NOS .1755, 1756, 1758 TO 1761/MDS/2015 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOS ES WHEREAS I.T.A.NO.1757/MDS/2015 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. IN THE CASE OF SMT. V. LAKSHMI, I.T.A.NOS.1769 TO 1772 /MDS/2015 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES WHEREAS I.T.A.NOS. 1773 TO 1775/MDS/2015 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PU RPOSES. REVENUE S APPEAL IN I.T.A.NO. 2068/MDS/2015 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD JUNE, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ! ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ) ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / CHENNAI ! / DATED: 23 RD JUNE, 2016 RD !' # $% &% / COPY TO: 1 . '( / APPELLANT 4. ) / CIT 2. #*'( / RESPONDENT 5. %+, # - / DR 3. ) () / CIT(A) 6. ,/ 0 / GF
