Dr.C.N.Selvaraja, CHENNAI V. ACIT, Madurai

ITA 215/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 95965 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 23-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: K BALASUBR AMANIAN
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Onus to prove
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , ! , ' #$ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NOS. 213, 214 & 215/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2001-02, 2004-05 & 2005-06 DR. C.N.SELVARAJA, 5/3, IV CROSS ST., LOGIAH COLONY, SALIGRAMAM, CHENNAI 600093. PAN ANWPS4290D APPELLANT) V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, MADURAI. RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI K. BALASUBRAMANIAN, ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V.SREEKANTH, JCIT ! / DATE OF HEARING : 23.07.2015 '# ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28.08.2015 / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) D ATED - - ITA 213 TO 215/ 15 2 5.11.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02, 2004-05 AND 2005-06. 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO CONFIRMATION OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1 )(C) OF THE ACT. 3. FIRST, WE TAKE UP ITA NO.213/MDS/2015: THE BRIE F FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON MEDIC AL PROFESSION IN ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM OF MEDICINES, AYURVEDA AND SI DDHA. SEARCH ACTION U/S.132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON 6 .8.2004 IN THE RESIDENCE AS WELL AS IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES O F THE ASSESSEE AT CHENNAI AND BOOTHAPANDI (KANYAKUMARI D ISTRICT). CONSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH, A NOTICE U/S.153A WAS ISS UED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME O N 25.1.2006 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 4,86,420/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ` 42,350/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: A. ADDITION TOWARDS INADEQUATE DRAWINGS U/S.69C ` 32,000/- B. ADDITION U/S.68 ` 9,50,000/- C. UNDERSTATEMENT OF COST OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES ` 2,55,957/- THOUGH THE ASSESSEE ONLY CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF ` 9,50,000/- MADE UNDER SEC.68 OF THE ACT BEFORE THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS), THE SAME WAS CONFIRMED BY HIM. LATER, - - ITA 213 TO 215/ 15 3 THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT TOWARDS THE ABOVE ADDITION AT ` 3,71,309/- IN RESPECT OF CONCEALED INCOME OF ` 12,37,697/-. ON APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE P ENALTY IN RESPECT OF ADDITION MADE U/S.68 OF THE ACT, BY OBSE RVING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH CONFIRMATION LETTERS FOR THE LOANS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, EVEN THE CREDITORS W ERE DENIED HAVING ADVANCED LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING T O THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE D ID NOT FILE FULL AND TRUE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND IF THERE HA S BEEN NO SEARCH OPERATION, THIS CONCEALMENT COULD NOT HAVE D ISCOVERED AND THE ENTIRE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE IS AIMED AT TAX EVASION BY FILING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HOWE VER, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) DELETED THE PEN ALTY IN RESPECT OF INADEQUATE DRAWINGS U/S.69C OF THE ACT A ND UNDERSTATEMENT OF COST OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES. AGAINST SUSTAINING OF THE PENALTY, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEA L BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE IN DISPU TE, IT IS NECESSARY TO APPRECIATE THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF SEC. 271(1)(C) - - ITA 213 TO 215/ 15 4 READ WITH THE EXPLANATIONS THEREIN. SEC.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT COMES INTO PLAY WHEN AN ASSESSEE CONCEALS PARTICULA RS OF HIS INCOME AND FURNISHES INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. EXPLANATION I TO SEC.271(1)(C) IS A DEEMING PROVISI ON, WHICH ENLARGES THE SCOPE OF EXPRESSION CONCEALMENT AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT SAYS THAT ANY AMOUNT ADDED OR DISALLOWED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME S HALL BE DEEMED TO REPRESENT THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN CONCEALED. IN OTHER WORDS, WHENEVER AN ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE IS MADE, THE INITIAL BURDEN I S UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT IT IS NOT HIS CONCEALED THE INCOME OR HE HAS NOT FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH IN COME. EXPLANATION I TO SEC.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT LAYS DOWN THE PROCEDURE TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN AS UNDER : (A) WHEN SUCH PERSON OFFERS AN EXPLANATION AND SUB STANTIATES THE SAME; OR (B) PROVES THAT ALL FACTS ARE ON RECORD AND MATERIA L TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL INCOME HAS BEEN DISCLOSED AND EXPLANATION IS BONA FIDE. WHEN AN EXPLANATION IS OFFERED, THE ONUS STANDS SHI FTED ON TO THE REVENUE WHEREBY IT HAS TO BE SHOWN THAT THE EXPLANA TION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FALSE OR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BE EN ABLE TO - - ITA 213 TO 215/ 15 5 SUBSTANTIATE HIS EXPLANATION AND FAILED TO PROVE TH AT SUCH EXPLANATION IS BONA FIDE BUT ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIAL TO COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL EVIDENCE DISCL OSED. IT IS NOT FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONA BLE DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICUL ARS OF INCOME OR HAS CONCEALED INCOME REFERABLE TO THE ADDITIONS/ DISALLOWANCES MADE. 4.1 IN THE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA V. DHARMENDRA TEX TILES PROCESSORS AND OTHERS (306 ITR 277), THE SUPREME CO URT HAD AN OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF EXPL ANATION TO SEC.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND, WHILE NOTICING THAT T HE COURT CANNOT READ ANYTHING INTO A STATUTORY PROVISION OR A STIPU LATED CONDITION WHICH IS PLAIN AND UNAMBIGUOUS AND THE LANGUAGE EMP LOYED IN A STATUTE IS THE DETERMINATIVE FACTOR OF LEGISLATIVE INTENTION. THE APEX COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE EXPLANATIONS INDICATE THE ELEMENT OF STRICT LIABILITY ON THE ASSESSEE FOR CONCEALMENT OR FOR GIVING INACCURATE PARTICULARS WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF I NCOME. IN THE CASE OF K.P. MADHUSUDHANAN V. CIT (251 ITR 99), THE APEX COURT OBSERVED THAT EVEN A NOTICE ISSUED U/S.271(1) (C) OF THE ACT, AN ASSESSEE CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN PUT TO N OTICE THAT - - ITA 213 TO 215/ 15 6 EXPLANATION TO SEC.271(1)(C) IS INVOKED. IN OTHER WORDS, NO EXPRESS INVOCATION OF THE EXPLANATION IS NECESSARY. AS AND WHEN ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE IS MADE, THERE IS DEEMED CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ON WHICH PENALTY IS IMPOSSIBLE AND THE INITIAL BURDEN IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS EXPLANATION TO PROVE B ONA FIDE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ARE GENUINE. IN O THER WORDS, IN INVOKING EXPLANATION TO SEC.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, T HERE IS NO BURDEN ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ESTABLISH MENS R EA AND IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO SATISFACTORILY DISCHARGE ITS O NUS OF PROVING THE BONA FIDE WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF ADDITION/ DISALLOWANCE. 4.2 IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE CREDITS IN THE NAME OF THE FOLLOWING PERSONS: P. MASANAM ` 4,00,000/- V. MANI ` 3,00,000/- M.P. NATARAJAN ` 2,50,000/- ` 9,50,000/- ========== THE ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM THE AB OVE THREE PERSONS ON 21.9.2006 CONFIRMING THE LENDING OF MONE Y TO THE ASSESSEE. SUBSEQUENTLY, WHEN THE DEPARTMENT SENT S UMMONS U/S.131 DIRECTING THEM TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, - - ITA 213 TO 215/ 15 7 THEY SENT REPLY BY REGISTERED POST STATING THAT THE Y ARE AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS, UNEDUCATED AND THEY HAVE NO FINANCIAL CAPACITY TO LEND MONEY AND THEY HAVE NOT ADVANCED O R LENT MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS G IVEN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO COMMENT ON THE ABOVE REPLY. HOWEVER, EVEN AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY, THE ASSESSE E FAILED TO TAKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE GENUINENESS OF T HE CREDITORS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN CONFIRMATION LE TTERS FROM THE PARTIES. CONTRARY TO THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS TA KEN A PLEA THAT THE CREDITORS ARE LAND LORDS AND AGRICULTURISTS AND THEY FEARED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND TRAVEL TO M ADURAI, SO THAT THEY SENT LETTERS. HOWEVER, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDIT ORS, GENUINENESS AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE TRANSACTIO NS, AS THE CREDITORS ARE DENIED THE ADVANCE TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE CREDITORS ARE AGRICULTURAL LABOURE RS, AS ADMITTED BY THE CREDITORS THEMSELVES AND HAVING NO CAPACITY TO GIVE LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAVING FAILED TO P ROVE THE TRANSACTION AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FURTHER MATER IAL PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE AO - - ITA 213 TO 215/ 15 8 CONCLUDED THAT IT WAS A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALT Y, WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS ). FURTHER NON-ATTENDANCE IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMONS WAS IN TH E KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE, EVEN IN THE PENALTY PROC EEDINGS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CHOSE TO ENSURE THE ATTENDANCE OF THESE CREDITORS. AT ANY RATE, NOTHING WAS BROUGHT ON REC ORD TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE TRANSA CTIONS. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF SEC.68 AS WELL AS PROVISION OF SE C. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE EXPLANATIONS O FFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE SUBST ANTIATED WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH SHOULD SHOW THAT TH E EXPLANATIONS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE, PRIMA FACIE, THAT THE CREDITORS ARE GENUINE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AS SESSING OFFICER MENTIONED THAT ALL THESE CREDITORS ARE NOT HAVING A NY MEANS TO LEND MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEY ARE AGRICULTURA L LABOURERS, UNEDUCATED AND DO NOT HAVE ANY CAPACITY TO LEND MON EY AND THEY HAVE NOT ADVANCED ANY MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSES SEE IS - - ITA 213 TO 215/ 15 9 SUBSTANTIATED WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THUS, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING PENALTY U/S.27 1(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 4.3 WITH REFERENCE TO THE ADDITION MADE U/S.68 OF T HE ACT, THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE DELHI HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. AGGARWAL PIPE CO. (240 ITR 880), WHE REIN IT WAS HELD THAT SURRENDER OF CASH CREDITS BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BONA FIDE AND IT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO ADMISSION OF CONCEAL MENT SO AS TO ATTRACT PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IN OUR O PINION, IN THIS CASE, THE RATIO OF THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT CANNOT BE APPLIED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, DURING THE SEARCH, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND UNACCOUNTED CASH CREDITS. HAD IT BEEN, NO SUCH ACT ION TAKEN PLACE U/S.132 OF THE ACT, THE LAPSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE COME TO LIGHT. HERE, THERE IS NO SU RRENDER OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE RATHER BY WAY OF SEARCH ACTI ON U/S.132 OF THE ACT, THE DEPARTMENT DISCOVERED THE UNACCOUNT ED CASH CREDITS. FURTHER, IN GROUND NO.1.2, THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT V. MANISH ORGANICS INDIA LTD. (17 TAXMANN.COM 25)(AHD.), WHER EIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: - - ITA 213 TO 215/ 15 10 THIS CASE IS ALSO COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE T RIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF ACIT V. EXCEL FORGING (P.) LTD. IN IT APPEAL NO.1709/AHD/2005 DATED 26.12.2008 WHER EIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT NON-AVAILABILITY OF CONFIRMAT ION AND OTHER DETAILS ARE VALID PO I NTS FOR MAK I NG ADD I T I O N U / S 68 . B UT BECA U SE TH E E X P L ANA TI ON OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE GENU I NE N ESS O F DEPOS IT S I S NOT ACCEPTED , IT CANNOT STRAIGHT AWAY RESULT INTO PENAL T Y . I N THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE I S A PUBLIC LI MI T ED COMPA N Y ACCEP TI NG DEPOSIT IN LA R GE NUMBER FROM PUBL I C . THE ASSESSEE FA IL ED TO P R OD U CE SOME OF THE DEPOS I TO R S TO PROVE T HE GENU I NE N ESS A N D CR ED ITW OR THINESS IN SP I TE OF THE EFFORTS MADE , I T RESU L TED I NTO ADD ITI ON U / S 68 BU T IT CANNOT LEAD TO PENALTY FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME . THEREFORE , I N OUR CONSIDERED OP I N I ON THE I D . CIT ( A ) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE PENAL T Y . THE R E I S NO I NF I RMITY IN HI S O R DE R . WE UPHO L D THE SAME . THE APPEA L F IL ED BY T H E REVE N UE I S D I S MI SSED. 4.4 THE LD. AR ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE D ELH I T RIBUNA L I N THE CASE O F B HARTESH JA IN V . ITO ( 2010 ) 43 DTR 3 20 /1 4 37 T T J 200 / 4 I TR 3 7 0 ( DELHI T R I B ), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAV I NG P R ODUCED CO N F IRM AT I O N S F OR BOT H TH E A LL EGED L OA N S , IT CANNOT BE T HA T THE E X P L ANAT ION O F TH E AS S ESSEE W AS N O T BO N A FI DE OR TH A T M A TERIAL FACTS WERE NOT D I SCLOSED M E R E LY BECAUSE ADD ITI ONS UNDER SECT I ON 68 BEEN CONF I RMED FOR THE REASON THAT THE FI RST CREDITOR DEN I ED THAT THE A MOUNT WAS GIVEN TO ASSESSEE AS A LOAN AND T HERE WAS SE RI OUS DOUBT ABOUT THE G ENUINENESS OF THE SOU R CE SECON D L OA N A N D TH E R E F O R E EXPLN 1 T O 2 71 (1 )( C ) I S N OT APP LI CAB L E AND PE N A LTY I S N O T L E V I AB L E . - - ITA 213 TO 215/ 15 11 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FA CTS OF THE AFORESAID CASES RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. BEING SO, WE HAVE NO HESITATION TO CONFIRM THE PENALTY IN THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2001-02 AND THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. ITA NO.214/MDS/2015 A.Y. 2004-05: IN THIS CASE, PENALTY WAS LEVIED ON THE ADDITION OF ` 17 LAKHS MADE U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE FACTS IN THIS CASE A RE SIMILAR TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. ON THE SAME REASONS G IVEN IN ITA NO.213/MDS/2015, LEVY OF PENALTY IS CONFIRME D IN THIS YEAR ALSO. THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 7. ITA NO.215/MDS/2015 A.Y. 2005-06. IN THIS CASE, PENALTY WAS LEVIED ON ACCOUNT OF RENTAL ADVANCE OF ` 9 LAKHS AND ALLEGED FD OF ` 6,08,354/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: A) INADEQUATE DRAWINGS ` 30,000/- B) RENT ADVANCE RECEIPTS NOT CAPABLE FOR ` 9,00,000/- FOR VERIFICATION C) UNDERSTATEMENT IN COST OF CONSTRUCTION ` 28,41,025/- D) ADDITION U/S.68 ` 3,48,000/- E) SEIZED FD IN THE NAME MISS S.SHEEBA BAI ` 6,08,354/- - - ITA 213 TO 215/ 15 12 8. ON FURTHER APPEAL TO THE CIT(APPEALS), THE ADDIT IONS WERE CONFIRMED. AS THE AO CONSIDERED THE ABOVE ITEMS FO R LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, LEVIED PENALTY OF ` 14,18,214/- WHICH IS EQUIVALENT TO THE TAX TO BE EVADED. ON AP PEAL, BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS), HE CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF U/S.271(1)(C) TOWARDS RENTAL ADVANCE ADDITION OF ` 9 LAKHS AND ` 6,08,354/- TOWARDS FIXED DEPOSITS. AGAINST THESE T WO ITEMS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSE D SOME AMOUNTS IN THE BOOKS AS RENTAL ADVANCES RECEIVED FR OM THE TENANTS STAYED IN THE ASSESSEES PROPERTY. THEY AR E FROM KERALA AND WORKING AS SUB-CONTRACTORS FOR KOODANGULAM ATOM IC POWER PROJECT. WHEN THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLI SH IDENTITY, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, AND CAPACITY OF THE PERSON TO ADVANCE MONEY AS REQUIRED U/S.68 OF THE ACT, THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AFTER THEIR WORK WAS OVER, THEY VACA TED THE PREMISES WITHOUT INFORMING AND HENCE, HE WAS UNABLE TO PROVIDE ANY OF THE ABOVE DETAILS. IT IS UNUSUAL THAT THE T ENANTS LEFT THE PLACE WITHOUT TAKING BACK THE ADVANCES. THE ADDITI ON WAS MAD - - ITA 213 TO 215/ 15 13 U/S.68 IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THOUGH THIS EXPLANATION WAS REPEATED DURING APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUNAL, THE SAME WAS REJECTED AND THE ADDITION WA S CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL. AS DISCUSSED EARLIER IN ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2001- 02, IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE BURDEN TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF T HE PARTIES. IT IS NOT ONLY VERIFIABLE BUT ALSO DEVICE VERIFICATION . 10. REGARDING THE ADDITION OF ` 6,08,354/-, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS DUPLICATE ADDITION, WHICH IS NOT CORRECT. THERE IS ADDITION OF ` 5 LAKHS IN THE NAME OF MISS S. SHEEBA BAI AND THE SAME IS DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL. ACCORDING TO THE TRIBUNAL, ` 6,08,354/- IS A DIFFERENT ADDITION. AS DISCUSSED EARLIER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS EVEN BEFORE THE APPELLATE STAGE. THE EXPLANATION G IVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT BONA FIDE. AS DISCUSSED EARLIER IN ITA NO.213/MDS/2015, WE CONFIRM THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT (APPEALS), AND THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IN ITA NOS. 213, 214 & 215/MDS/2015 ARE DISMISSED. - - ITA 213 TO 215/ 15 14 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 28 TH OF AUGUST, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( $ . . $ . %& ) ( ' ( ) * ) N.R.S.GANESAN + ,-./01.2334.15+ 6 78 /JUDICIAL MEMBER ! 789::3;/<./<=>?@>1 '6 /CHENNAI, A7 /DATED, THE 28 TH AUGUST, 2015. MPO* 7& BCDC /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. E+ /CIT(A) 4. E /CIT 5. CF% G /DR 6. %HI /GF.