RAJAGOUNDER RAJAVEL, TIRUCHENGODE V. ITO WARD-5 , NAMAKKAL

ITA 2014/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6834 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 05-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS R ANITA
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Revised return
• Section: 142(1); 133A; 143(1); 143(2); 68; 139

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI . , , BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. I.T.A. NOS. 2013 & 2014/CHNY/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2013-14 & 2014-15 SHRI. RAJAGOUNDER RAJAVEL, NO. 65B, OKKILIPATTY RAJAPALAYAM, TIRUCHENGODE 637 209. [PAN: AJSPR 2250E] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -5, NAMAKKAL, ERODE. ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) ' ( / APPELLANT BY : NONE +,' ( / RESPONDENT BY : MRS R. ANITA, JCIT ( /DATE OF HEARING : 23.10.2019 ( /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.12.2019 / O R D E R PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE FILED THE ABOVE APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SALEM IN ITA NO. E-12/2016 -17 DATED 30.04.2019 & 26.04.2019, RESPECTIVELY , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE ARS 2013-14 & 2014-15 WITH FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : :-2-: ITA NOS. 2013 & 2014/CHNY/2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14: 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS), SALEM DATED 23.04.2019 IN ITA NO. E-12/2016-17 FOR THE ABOVE AS SESSMENT YEAR IS CONTRARY TO LAW, FACTS, AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITIO N MADE PERTAINING TO THE CONTRIBUTION MADE TO ANOTHER ENTITY INVOKING SECTIO N 68 OF THE ACT WITHOUT ASSIGNING PROPER REASONS AND JUSTIFICATION AND FURT HER OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF TH E ACT HAD NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE INASMUCH AS FURTHE R OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THERE WAS NO CREDIT IN THE BOOKS O F THE APPELLANT WARRANTING EXPLANATION FOR THE SOURCE WHILE ON THE CONTRARY THE CONTRIBUTION MADE BY THE APPELLANT (OUTFLOW), WAS ERRONEOUSLY BR OUGHT TO TAX THEREBY NEGATING THE ADDITION MADE ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE E X-PARTE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE EX-PARTE IMPUGNED ORDER W OULD GROSSLY DEFY THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ANY ORDER PASSED IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE SHOULD BE RECKONED AS NULLITY IN LAW WHILE VITIATING THE EXPARTE IMPUGNED ORDER AND ASSESSMENT ORDER. 4. THE CIT(APPEALS) WENT WRONG IN SOLELY RELYING ON THE STATEMENT RECORDED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY THEREBY VITIATING THE FINDING S RECORDED AT PARA 6 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER 5. THE CIT(APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT IN AN Y EVENT HAVING NOT EXAMINED THE SOURCE FOR THE CONTRIBUTION INDEPENDEN TLY BY PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY, THE SUSTENANCE OF THE SAID ADDITION IN THE COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE TOTAL INCOME WAS WRONG, ERRO NEOUS, UNJUSTIFIED, INCORRECT AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO FILE ADDITIONAL GR OUNDS/ARGUMENTS AT THE TIME OF HEARING. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 : 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS), SALEM DATED 26.04.2019 IN ITA NO. E-12J2016-17 FOR THE ABOVE AS SESSMENT YEAR IS CONTRARY TO LAW, FACTS, AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. :-3-: ITA NOS. 2013 & 2014/CHNY/2019 2. THE CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITIO N MADE PERTAINING TO THE CONTRIBUTION MADE TO ANOTHER ENTITY INVOKING SECTIO N 68 OF THE ACT WITHOUT ASSIGNING PROPER REASONS AND JUSTIFICATION AND FURT HER OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF TH E ACT HAD NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE INASMUCH AS FURTHE R OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THERE WAS NO CREDIT IN THE BOOKS O F THE APPELLANT WARRANTING EXPLANATION FOR THE SOURCE WHILE ON THE CONTRARY THE CONTRIBUTION MADE BY THE APPELLANT (OUTFLOW), WAS ERRONEOUSLY BR OUGHT TO TAX THEREBY NEGATING THE ADDITION MADE ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE E X-PARTE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE EX-PARTE IMPUGNED ORDER W OULD GROSSLY DEFY THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ANY ORDER PASSED IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE SHOULD BE RECKONED AS NULLITY IN LAW WHILE VITIATING THE EXPARTE IMPUGNED ORDER AND ASSESSMENT ORDER. 4. THE CIT(APPEALS) WENT WRONG IN SOLELY RELYING ON THE STATEMENT RECORDED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY THEREBY VITIATING THE FINDING S RECORDED AT PARA 6 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 5. THE CIT(APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT IN AN Y EVENT HAVING NOT EXAMINED THE SOURCE FOR THE CONTRIBUTION INDEPENDEN TLY BY PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY, THE SUSTENANCE OF THE SAID ADDITION IN THE COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE TOTAL INCOME WAS WRONG, ERRO NEOUS, UNJUSTIFIED, INCORRECT AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO FILE ADDITIONAL GR OUNDS/ARGUMENTS AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. NONE WAS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE, THOUGH THE NO TICES FOR THE HEARINGS WERE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 28.8.19 WHICH ARE P LACED IN THE RECORD . IN THE HEARING NOTICES, THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO REQUIRE D TO CURE THE DEFECT IN THE E-CHALLAN WHICH WAS NOT ATTESTED. SINCE THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT RESPONDED, WE REQUIRED THE LD DR TO PRESENT THE CASES. THE LD DR TOOK US THROUGH THE :-4-: ITA NOS. 2013 & 2014/CHNY/2019 ORDERS OF THE LD CIT(A) AND SUPPORTED THEM , THE RE LEVANT PORTION IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER : 2.1 RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 5. IN VIEW OF THE UNRESPONSIVE AND RECALCITRANT A TTITUDE OF THE APPELLANT IN NOT APPEARING FOR ANY OF THE HEARINGS POSTED BY THI S OFFICE EITHER IN PERSON OR THROUGH HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, I AM CONS TRAINED TO FINALIZE THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WITH THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WITHOUT ANY FURTHER RECOURSE TO THE APPELLANT. 6. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143{3) R.W.S. 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PASSED ON 29.03.201 6 IS REPRODUCED BELOW: QUOTE .. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ON 06.08.2014 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME AT RS 2,61,980/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. T HE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 WAS ISSUED ON 23.09.2015 AND SERVED ON 26.09.2015. THE CASE WAS POSTED FOR HEARING ON VARIOUS DATES. N OTICES U/S 142(1 OF THE IT ACT WAS ISSUED. BUT, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH ANY OF THE NOTICES AND NOT PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHE R PARTICULARS. THE CHRONOLOGICAL ISSUE OF THE NOTICES AND THE RESP ONSE OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AS FOLLOWS: SL.NO NOTICE ISSUED U/S. DATE OF THE NOTICE SERVICE OF THE NOTICE REMARKS 1 143(2) 23.09.2015 26.09.2015 ADJOURNMENT LETTER FILED 2 REPOSTING LETTER 29.10.2015 30.10.2015 NO RESPONSE 3 142(1) 16.11.2015 NOT CLAIMED EVEN AFTER INTIMATION ON 19.11.2015 & 20.11.2015 4 142(1) 10.12.2015 14.12.2015 NO RESPONSE :-5-: ITA NOS. 2013 & 2014/CHNY/2019 5 131 29.02.2016 02.03.2016 NO RESPONSE 6 142(1) 04.03.2016 09.03.2016 NO RESPONSE ALL THE ABOVE TABULATED FACTS CLEARLY ESTABLISH THE OBSTINATE NATURE OF THE ASSESSEE NOT TO RESPOND TO ANY OF THE NOTICES AND I T HAS TOTALLY FAILED TO FURNISH ANY THE DETAILS. FURTHER, IT MAY BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE TABLE OF EVE NTS THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT AND SEVERAL OPPORTUNI TIES TO PRODUCE THE DETAILS AND TO EXPLAIN THE INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETU RN OF INCOME FILED ALONG WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IT HAS FAILED TO COMPLY TO ANY OF THE NOTICES, THEREBY, IT HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS OF PRO VING GROSS PROFIT, THE INCOME AS WELL AS THE EXPENDITURE. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144 OF THE I.T.ACT , 144. BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT (1) IF ANY PERSON A. FALLS TO MAKE THE RETURN REQUIRED UNDER SUB-SECT ION (1) OF SECTION 139 AND HAS NOT MADE A RETURN OR A REVISED RETURN UNDER SUB -SECTION (4) OR SUB- SECTION (5) OF THAT SECTION, OR (B.) FAILS TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE TERMS OF A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OR FAILS TO COMPLY WITH A DIRECT ION ISSUED UNDER SUBSECTION (2A) OF THAT SECTION, OR (C) HAVING MADE A RETURN, FALLS TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE TERMS OF A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 143, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT AL L RELEVANT MATERIAL WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GATHERED, SHALL, AF TER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, MAKE THE ASSESSMENT OF THE TOTAL INCOME OR LOSS TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT AND DETERMINE THE SUM P AYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE[ .. ] ON THE BASIS OF SUCH ASSESSMENT: PROVIDED THAT SUCH OPPORTUNITY SHALL BE GIVEN BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER BY SERVING A NOTICE CALLING UPON THE ASSESS EE TO SHOW CAUSE, ON A DATE AND TIME TO BE SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE, WHY TH E ASSESSMENT SHOULD NOT BE COMPLETED TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT IT SHALL-NOT BE NECESSARY TO GIVE SUCH OPPORTUNITY IN A CASE WHERE A NOTICE UNDER SUB-SECT ION (1) OF SECTION 142 HAS PRIOR TO THE MAKING OF AN ASSESSMENT UNDER THIS SECTION. (2) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION AS THEY STOOD IM MEDIATELY BEFORE THEIR AMENDMENT BY THE DIRECT TAX LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1 987 (4 OF 1988), SHALL APPLY TO AND IN RELATION TO ANY ASSESSMENT FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1988, OR ANY EA RLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR AND REFERENCES IN THIS SECTION TO THE OTHER PROVISI ONS OF THIS ACT SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS REFERENCES TO THOSE PROVISIONS AS FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE AND APPLICABLE TO THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. :-6-: ITA NOS. 2013 & 2014/CHNY/2019 IN VIEW OF THE SUM AND SUBSTANCES, AS DISCUSSED ABO VE, THE FACTS OF THIS CASE CLEARLY FALLS WITHIN THE SECOND PROVISO TO SEC TION 144(1) OF THE IT ACT , WHERE, NO OPPORTUNITY BY WAY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE S HALL BE NECESSARY TO BE ISSUED AS NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE IT ACT WAS ISSUE D SEVERALLY AND THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT COMPLY TO ANY OF THIS NOTICE. AS THE ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS ARE CLEARLY FIT INTO T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144 OF THE IT ACT, I AM CONSTRAINED TO PROCEED WITH THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE - ON HAND - IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS AS THE CASE GETS TIME BARRED ON 31.03.2016. THE FOLLOWING FACTS AND FIGURES ARE FOUND, ON VERIF ICATION MADE AFTER DULY CONSIDERING AND EXAMINING ALL THE EVIDENCES, IF ANY , FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S, TO BE UNEXPLAINED, UNPROVEN AND UNTENABLE CLAIMS MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THAT ARE NOT ALLOWABLE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF IT ACT. ALL OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND FIGURES ARE CLEARLY ESTA BLISHING BEYOND DOUBT THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS KNOWINGLY, WANTONLY AND INTENTIONALLY SUPPRESSED THE REAL BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS FILED BEFORE THE DEP ARTMENT AND THEREBY SUPPRESSED THE REAL INCOME THAT HAS TO BE SUBJECTED TO TAX. A SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A WAS CARRIED OUT ON 12-1 2-2014 AT VISHNU EDUCATIONAL TRUST, THE A' IN THE CAPACITY AS PRESI DENT OF TRUST HAS ADMITTED THE FOLLOWING UNDER OATH UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961. .. UNQUOTE 6. THE ONLY ISSUE FOR ADJUDICATION IN THIS CASE IS REGARDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN BRINGING TO TAX AN AMOUNT OF R S,49,50,000/- AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT, RESULTING IN A TAX DEMAND O F RS. 22,43,690/- SOLELY RELYING ON THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM THE PRESIDEN T OF THE TRUST ON 12.12.2014. 7. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: THE APPELLANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL DOING THE BUSINESS OF DIGGING BOREWELLS IN DROUGHT PRONE AREAS. BESIDES THIS, THE MAIN ACT IVITY OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN FUNCTIONING AS PRESIDENT IN A CHARITABLE TRUST IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF VISHNU EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST WHICH IS EN GAGED IN RUNNING AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION. A SURVEY U/S. 133A WAS CARRIED OUT ON 12.12.2014 IN THE PREMISES OF THE TRUST. DURING TH E COURSE OF SURVEY, THE APPELLANT BEING THE PRESIDENT OF THE TRUST WAS ASKE D ABOUT THE SOURVES OF INVESTMENTS MADE AND ALSO TRUSTEE-WISE CONTRIBUTION MADE TO THE TRUST TOWARDS INVESTMENTS. IN ANSWER TO QUESTION NO. 10 AND AT SL.NO. 1, THE NAME R. RAJAVEL APPEARS AND AN INVESTMENT OF RS. 50 ,00,000/- IS SHOWN AGAINST THIS NAME. THE AO IN HIS ORDER DATED 29.03 .2016 RELIED ON THE STATEMENT UNDER OATH OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COU RSE OF SURVEY. THE AO STATED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 49,50,000/- OUT OF RS. 50 LAKHS PERTAINED TO :-7-: ITA NOS. 2013 & 2014/CHNY/2019 THE PERIOD FROM 01.04.2012 TO 31.03.2013. AS THE A SSESSEE HAD NOT OFFERED THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 49,50,000/- IN HI RETURN OF INCO ME FILED FOR THE ASST. YEAR, THE SAME WAS ASSESSED AS HIS UNDISCLOSED INVE STMENT AND BROUGHT TO TAX ACCORDINGLY. 2.2 THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: 6. FURTHER, IT IS SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER T HAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT RESPONDED TO ANY OF THE STATUTORY NOTICES ISSUED BY THE A.O. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. APART FROM SEEKIN G ADJOURNMENT ON FEW OCCASIONS, HE HAS NOT AVAILED ANY OF THE OPPORTUNIT IES ACCORDED TO HIM TO PRESENT HIS CASE BEFORE THE A.O. HENCE, THE ASSESSM ENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE ACT. BEFORE ME ALSO THE APPELLANT HAS NO T PRODUCED ANY MATERIALS IN SUPPORT ANY OF HIS CLAIMS. AS DISCUSSED IN THE E ARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER THAT THE APPELLANT IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE TRUST AN D HE HAD ALSO ADMITTED IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY REGARDING HIS CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS THE TRUST FUND. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT OFFERED THIS INCOME FOR TAXATION FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN TH E ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION FOR THE SOURCES FOR THESE CONTRIBUTIONS BY THE APPELLANT, THE A.O. HAS ASSESSED ENTIRE AMOUNT AS THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT BASED ON THE ADMISSION DURIN G THE COURSE OF SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE I.T. ACT, WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS FOUND THEREIN. HENCE, I DO NOT FIND ANY VOID REASON TO INTERFERE W ITH THE FINDINGS OF THE A.O. AND DISMISS ALL THE GROUNDS OF THE APPELLANT. 3. WE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD DR AND GONE THROUGH THEM . IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE ASSESSEE, SHRI. RAJA GOUNDER RAJAVEL, WAS THE PRESIDENT IN A CHARITABLE TRUST, VISHNU EDUCATION AL AND CHARITABLE TRUST, AND WAS ALSO DOING BUSINESS IN PUTTING BORE WELLS IN DR OUGHT AREAS. A SURVEY WAS CARRIED OUT ON 12.12.2014 AT VISHNU EDUCATIONAL TRU ST. AT THAT TIME, THE ASSESSEE DEPOSED THAT RS. 6,90,50,000/- WAS MADE AS AN INVE STMENT IN TRUST LAND, BUILDING APPROVAL ETC. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DEPOSED THE LIST OF PERSONS AND THE :-8-: ITA NOS. 2013 & 2014/CHNY/2019 AMOUNT CONTRIBUTED BY VARIOUS TRUSTEES. FURTHER, T HE DOCUMENTS INVENTORIED AS ANN/MP/BND/F-4, PAGE NO.5, REVEALED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 86,50,000/- FOR THE PERIOD 01.04 .2012 TO 31.03.2014. WHILE DEPOSING THE SWORN STATEMENT, SHRI, RAJAGOUNDER RAJ AVEL ADMITTED RS. 50,00,000/- AS AN INVESTMENT IN THE TRUST DURING TH E PERIOD RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. HOWEVER, THE RETURNS FILE D, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADMITTED THE SOURCES FOR THE ABOVE INVESTMENT. DUR ING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE AO HAS GIVEN A LOT OF OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE S FOUND IN THE ANNEXURE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH HIS NOTICES, THE AO ADDED RS. 50,00,000/- AS AN UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENTS IN THE ASSESSMENT MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AND RS. 37,00,000/- AS AN UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE ASSESSMENT MADE FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2014-15. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THOSE ORDERS, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(A). IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A), SUPRA, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY EFFORTS TO EXPLAIN THE IMPUGNED SOURCES AND HE NCE THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THOSE APPEALS. THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE ABOV E APPEALS, BEFORE US ALSO , HE HAS NOT FILED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO EXPLAI N THE SOURCES OF THE IMPUGNED INVESTMENTS OR ANY DOCUMENT IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ABOVE AP PEALS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT RECTIFIED THE DEFECTS MENTIONED IN THE HEARING NOTICES. ON BOTH THE GROUNDS, WE DISMISS THE ASSESSEES ABOVE APPEALS. :-9-: ITA NOS. 2013 & 2014/CHNY/2019 4. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14 & 2014-15 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 27 TH DECEMBER, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . ' ) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) $% /JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- ( ) (S. JAYARAMAN) % /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, 1 /DATED: 27 TH DECEMBER, 2019 JPV (+3454 /COPY TO: 1. '/ APPELLANT 2. +,' /RESPONDENT 3. 6 ) (/CIT(A) 4. 6 /CIT 5. 4+ /DR 6. 9 /GF