V.Selvam, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2237/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8688 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 07-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 09-12-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: P G SADGURU DAS
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 133(6); 131; 68

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI , . , BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I T.A. NO. 2237 /MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR :20 1 1 - 12 SHRI V. SELVAM, FLAT NO.1, PADMAM FLATS, NO. 24 & 25, JAIPUR COLONY, PADMAVATHIAR ROAD, CHENNAI 600 086. [PAN: A BIPV3658E ] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 3, CHENNAI . ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.G. SADGURU DAS, C.A. / RESPONDENT BY : S HRI A.V. SREEKANTH , J CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 0 7 . 0 6 .201 6 / DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 24 . 0 8 .201 6 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) 4 , CHENNAI DATED 10 . 11 .20 1 5 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 1 - 1 2 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 57,00,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CREDITS AND DEPOSIT MADE BY THE ASSESSING I.T.A. NO . 2237 /M/ 15 2 OFFICER IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE AND ALL PROBABILITIES OF THE CASE. THE SAME IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE SUM OF RS. 6 LAKHS DEPOSITED ON 9/9/2010 REPRESENTED THE RENTAL ADVANCE DEPOSITED BY THE EXISTING TENANT OF THE PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR. 3. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE SUM OF RS. 25 LAKHS DEPOSITED ON 7/2/2011 IN THE BANK WAS BY ONE MR. SATYAMOORTHY, AN AGRICULTURIST AND THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE REJECTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT ANY ENQUIRY OR EXAMINATION OF THE SAID PERSON EVEN THOUGH HE HAS GIVEN CONFIRMATION LETTER CONFIRMING THE AMOUNT PROVIDED BY HIM F OR PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 15 LAKHS BEING THE CASH DEPOSITED ON 19/2/2011 WHEN THE APPELLANT HAD EXPLAINED THAT THE SAME REPRESENTED THE ADVANCE RECEIVED FOR SALE OF T HE PROPERTY BY THE APPELLANT. 5. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE MADE THE ADDITION EVEN THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAD FILED CONFIRMATION LETTERS AND THEY WERE REJECTED WITHOUT PROPER ENQUIRY OR EXAMINATION OF THE CONCERNED PERSONS AND THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT JUSTI FIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION. 6. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 11 LAKHS BEING THE CASH DEPOSIT MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SARAVANANPET BRANCH OF SBI WHEN IT WAS MADE BY THE APPELLANT'S FRIEND MR. R.VIJA YANATHAN FOR STARTING A NEW BUSINESS AND THE SAME WAS ALSO TAKEN BACK BY HIM WHEN THE INTENDED BUSINESS COULD NOT START. THE AMOUNT WAS HELD BY THE APPELLANT ONLY AS A CUSTODIAN OF MR. R.VIJAYANATHAN AND IT DOES NOT BELONG TO THE APPELLANT. THE LOWER AUTHO RITIES HAVE REJECTED THE CONFIRMATION GIVEN BY THE SAID PERSON WITHOUT ANY VALID REASON AND WITHOUT ANY EXAMINATION OF THE CONCERNED PERSON. 7. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT HE HAS DISCHARGED HIS INITIAL ONUS OF PROVING THE CREDITS/DEPOSITS BY FILING CONFI RMATION LETTERS FORM THE SAID PARTIES AND THEY WERE ALSO IDENTIFIED. THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES WERE NOT PUT TO EXAMINATION BY SUMMONING THE SAID CREDITORS AND THE AMOUNTS WERE ADDED WITHOUT ANY VALID GROUNDS. 8. THE APPELLANT THEREFORE PRAYS T HAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 57,00,000/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68/69A MAY BE DELETED AND RENDER JUSTICE. I.T.A. NO . 2237 /M/ 15 3 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSULTANCY IN PATENT AND TRADE MARK A ND FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ADMITTING A TOTAL INCOME OF .1,05,75,480/ - . THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [ ACT IN SHORT]. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 31. 07.2012 AND DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CONSIDERING VARIOUS DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 08.03.2014 BY ASSESSING TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT .1,62,75,480/ - AFTER MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS UNDER SECTIONS 68/69A OF THE ACT. 3. ON APPEAL, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. THE FIRST GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF .6,00,000/ - . FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT 30725338862 OF THE ASSESSEE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTICED THAT THE CASH AMOUNT WAS BEING DEPOSITED ON DIFFERENT INTERVALS AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: I.T.A. NO . 2237 /M/ 15 4 -- . - ~ - DATE PARTICULARS AM OUNT 23.08.2010 CASH DEPOSIT 3,00,000/ - ---- 09.09.2010 CASH DEPOSIT 5,00,000/ - 07.02.2011 CASH DEPOSIT 25,00,000/ - 19.02.2011 CASH DEPOSIT 14,50,000/ - TOTAL 47,50,000/ - OUT OF THE TOTAL CASH DEPOSIT OF . 47,50,000/ - , THE AMOUNT O F . 3,00,000/ - DEPOSITED ON 23 .08. 2010 WA S NOT A SUBJECT MATTER OF DISPUTE. THE REST OF THE AMOUNT OF .44,50,000 / - HAS BEEN ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS UNDER DIFFERENT EXPLANATIONS. 5.1 WITH REGARD TO THE FIRST A DDITION TOWARDS CASH DEPOSIT OF .5,00,000/ - ON 09.09.2010, BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THIS AMOUNT H AS BEEN RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF THE RENTAL ADVANCE RECEIVED FOR LETTING OUT ON RENT HIS PROPERTY AT CENOTAPH ROAD. THE ASSESS EE HAS STATED THAT THIS CENOTAPH ROAD PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED BY HIM DURING THIS RELEVANT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE TENANT ALREADY EXISTED WITH THE PREVIOUS OWNER BEFORE HIS PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY AND CONTINUED THE TENANCY WITH H IM. THE RENTAL ADVANCE PAID BY THE TENANT EARLIER WAS HELD IN CREDIT BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER. THIS SUM OF .5,00,000/ - WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY BY DIRECTLY DEPOSITING CASH INTO HIS ABOVE MENTIONED BANK ACCOUNT NO. 30725338862. THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINEN ESS OF THE CASH CREDIT BY ESTABLISHING THE I.T.A. NO . 2237 /M/ 15 5 IDENTITY OF THE PERSON, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PERSON. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO ACTUALLY REMITTED THIS ADVANCE MONEY THROUGH THE PREVIOUS OWNER ALTHOUGH HE WAS HIS OWN TENANT AT A LATER STAGE. HE FAILED TO FURNISH HIS NAME AND ADDRESS AS WELL. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY PROOF OF RECEIPT OF SUCH AMOUNT FROM THE PREVIOUS OWNER AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDE NCE AND FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTICED THAT THIS CASH DEPOSIT OF .5,00,000/ - DID NOT REFLECT IN THE RELEVANT CASH BOOK OF THE ASSESSE E . THE A SSESSING O FFICER HAS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE CASH OF .5,00,000/ - WAS DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF IN THE BANK AND NOT BY THE SO - CALLED PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE EARLIER. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF . 5,00,000/ - DEPOSITED IN CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, THE A SSESSING O FFICER HAS NOTICED FROM THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF RE NTAL ADVANCE CENOTAPH , REFLECTING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THAT ASSESSEE HA S ALSO RECEIVED .1,00,000/ - IN CASH ON 0 4 .06. 2010 AS RENTAL ADVANCE. O N THE SIMILAR GROUNDS, AS HAS HAPPENED IN RESPECT OF . 5,00,000/ - , SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION OF .1,00,000 / - , IDENTITY, ETC. AS WELL , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS THE DISALLOWED THE ABOVE CLAIM AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . I.T.A. NO . 2237 /M/ 15 6 5.2 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE SAME SUBMISSION S AS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND PLEADED TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CONTENDED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT VIDE LETTER DATED 20.01.2014 TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED THE IDEN TITY OF THE CREDITOR AND THE SOURCE OF THE CREDIT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTS OF THE LETTER DATED 20.01.2014 AND THE RELEVANT PARA AS HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE APP ELLATE ORDER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: THIS IS TOWARDS RENTAL ADVANCE RECEIVED FOR LETTING OUT ON RENT MY PROPERTY AT CENOTAPH ROAD. THIS PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED BY ME DURING THIS RELEVANT YEAR. THE TENANT ALREADY EXISTING WITH THE PREVIOUS OWNER BEFORE MY PU RCHASE OF THE PROPERTY CONTINUED THE TENANCY WITH ME. THE RENTAL ADVANCE MADE BY THE TENANT EARLIER WAS HELD IN CREDIT BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER. THIS SUM WAS . 5, 00,000/ - AND THE SAME WAS TRANSFERRED TO ME BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER BY DIRECTLY DEPOSITING CASH INTO MY BANK ACCOUNT. 5.3 ON PERUSAL OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 13.10.2015, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT I T IS NOT CORRECT ON THE PART OF THE ASS ESSEE TO STATE THAT THERE WAS NO NEED FOR HIM TO PROVIDE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THE RECEIPT OF .6,00,000/ - SO LONG THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY DID NOT CONTRADICT OF THE PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT TO THE APPELLANT. IT IS ALSO INCORRECT ON THE P ART OF THE APPELLANT TO HOLD THAT HE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS CAST UPON HIM. THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED PAN OF THE TENANT, THE COPIES OF THE RELEVANT ITR AND THE NATURE OF HIS BUSINESS ACTIVITY ETC. TO I.T.A. NO . 2237 /M/ 15 7 PROVE HIS IDENTITY. THESE EXPLANATIONS DO NOT CO ME TO THE RESCUE OF THE APPELLANT BEING DEVOID OF ANY EVIDENTIARY VALUE. FROM THE PERUSAL AND ANALYSIS OF THE ENTIRE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT, IT IS REVEALED THAT BESIDES SUBMITTING THE ABOVE EXPLANATIONS, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, THE IDENTITY OF THE TENANT AND HIS CREDITWORTHINESS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISCHARGE THE VERY BASIC ONUS CAST UPON HIM. MOREOVER, THE CONTRADICTION IN THE REPLIES OF THE ASSESS EE THAT THIS AMOUNT OF R S .5,00,000/ - WAS DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER AND NOT BY HIMSELF, ALSO GOES AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT NOT ACCEPTING THE SAME AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5.4 BEFORE US, BY REITERATING THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER SHOULD BE DELETED. HE ALSO FILED PAPER BOOK CONTAINING VARIOUS DOCUMENTS INCLUDING COPY OF THE RENTAL AGREEMENT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5.5 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERI ALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. ADMITTEDLY, THERE IS NO DISPUTE OVER CENOTAPH ROAD PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF I.T.A. NO . 2237 /M/ 15 8 THE ASSESSEE THAT CASH DEPOSIT OF .5,00,000/ - RELATES TO RENTAL ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM THE PREVIOUS OWNER FOR LETTING OUT THE PROPERTY ON RENT. HE ALSO SUBMITS THAT THE RENTAL ADVANCE PAID BY THE TENANT EARLIER WAS HELD IN CREDIT BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER AND ONCE THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE RENTAL ADVANCE RECEIVED BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER WAS DIRECTLY DEPOSITED IN CASH INTO ASSESSEE S BANK ACCOUNT. IF THE ABOVE AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHAT PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF HIS PAN, IDENTITY, ADDRESS, ETC. BEFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION. THE COPY OF THE RENTAL AGREEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS A VALID DOCUMENT SINCE THE RENTAL AGREEMENT IN THE TWENTY RUPEES NON - JUDICIAL STAMP PAPER DOES NOT CONTAIN VALID DETAILS SUCH AS PAN NUMBER OF TWO TENA NTS OR THE RENTAL AGREEMENT WAS NOTARISED BY REGISTERED NOTARY OR IT IS REGISTERED DOCUMENT. MOREOVER, IN THE DOCUMENT, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE AMOUNT OF .5,00,000/ - TOWARDS RENTAL ADVANCE SHALL BE PAYABLE BY THE TENANTS TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, BUT NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES. NOT ONLY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS ABOUT THE PAN NUMBER, I DENTITY OF THE TENANTS, ETC. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY VALID EVIDENCE, THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 13.10.2015 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT NO INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WITHOUT GIVING ANY DETAILS ABOUT THE TENANTS, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE LD. I.T.A. NO . 2237 /M/ 15 9 CIT(A) TO MAKE ENQUIRY OR ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE ENQUIRY. HENCE THE SUBMISSION IS VAGUE. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DA TED 13.10.2015 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AT PARA 3.9, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THERE IS NO NEED FOR HIM TO PROVIDE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THE RECEIPT OF .6,00,000/ - SO LONG THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE CENATOPH ROAD PROPERTY DID NOT CONTRADICT THE PA YMENT OF .6,00,000/ - TO THE ASSESSEE OR THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ANY INFORMATION TO THAT EFFECT WHICH HE HAS CHOSEN TO BRING UPON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , APPEARS TO BE CONTRARY TO THE RENTAL AGREEMENT, WHEREIN, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT T HE TENANTS HAVE PAID THE RENTAL ADVANCE/PAYABLE TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHRI SELVAM, THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT( A) AND ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 6. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF .25,00,000/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS CASH DEPOSIT OF .25,00,000/ - I N THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER 30725338862 OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE S BI G OPALPURAM . WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH SOURCE FOR THE ABOVE DEPOSIT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNDER: I.T.A. NO . 2237 /M/ 15 10 THIS IS ALL AMOUNT DEPOSITED BY MY COUSIN BROTHER S.SATYAMURTHY (MY FATHER'S ELDER BROTHER'S SON). HE HAILS F ROM APPAKARAI VILLAGE IN T HIRUMANGALAM IN MADURAI DISTRICT. S. SATHYAMURTHY HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN AGRICULTURE ALL ALONG FOR ABOUT 30 YEARS, CONTINUING THE FAMILY'S ANCESTRAL LAND CULTIVATION. HE INTENDED TO MAKE INVESTMENT IN A CITY PROPERTY AS MORE OF NEXT GENERATION MEMBERS IN HIS FAMILY AND ALSO OTHER BROTHERS'/SISTERS' FAMILY GETTING INTERESTED IN MIGRATING TO CITY FOR STUDIES AND JOBS. INITIALLY HE WANTED TO BUY A PROPERTY OF MR. MARTIN FOR WHICH HE ARRANGED AN INITIAL ADVANCE AMOUNT OF .25,00,000. BUT IT BECAME UNAFFORDABLE TO HIM. ALSO THE PROSPECTS OF AVAILING HOUSING LOAN WERE NOT FAVORABLE AS HE DID NOT HAVE TAX RETURNS OR AUDITED ACCOUNTS. THIS ADVANCE WAS THEN MOVED TO ME BY DEPOSITING INTO MY BANK ACCOUNT. IN THE MEANWHILE I HAD ALSO LOCATED ANO THER PROPERTY FOR HIM FOR PURCHASE AND I ADVANCED THIS MONEY OF .25,00,000 ON BEHALF OF MY COUSIN BROTHER. (HOWEVER, THIS PROPERTY WAS ULTIMATELY PURCHASED BY ME ONLY, AS MY COUSIN S. SATHYAMURTHY COULD NOT RAISE MY FUNDS ON HIS OWN OR THROUGH ANY HOUSING LOAN). I HAVE BECOME INDEBTED TO SATHYAMURTHY FOR THIS SUM OF .25,00,000/ - S. SATHYAMURTHY COULD MOBILIZE THIS AMOUNT OF . 25,00,000 FROM HIS OWN SAVINGS AND FAMILY SAVINGS. A LETTER OF CONFIRMATION PROVIDED BY S. SATHYAMURTHY HAS ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE YOUR GOOD SELF.' 6.1 HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT P RODUCE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PERSON MAKING THE PAYMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6.2 FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED THE RECEIPT OF .25, 00,000/ - IN CASH WITH ANY DOCUMENTARY PR OOF . THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY PROOF OF RECEIPT OF SUCH CASH FROM THE 'PREVIOUS OWNER' AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE. I T ALSO RAISES THE DOUBT ON THE CREDIBILITY OF S . S ATH YAMU RT HY, BEING A SMALL FARMER AND HAILING FR OM A SMALL VILLAGE, HAVING MOBILISED A HUGE CHUNK OF CASH OF . 25,00,000/ - ON A SINGLE DAY IN HIS HOUSE. FURTHER, T HE FOLLOWING ENTRY IS I.T.A. NO . 2237 /M/ 15 11 FOUND IN THE CASH BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010 - 11 WITH RESPECT TO THE SAID CASH CREDIT OF . 25, 00,000 / - : DATE PARTICULARS DEBIT CREDIT BALANCE 07 - 02 - 2011 STATE BANK OF INDIA 25,00,000.00 27,04,722.50 DR 08 - 02 - 2011 STATE BANK OF INDIA 25,00,000.00 2,04,722.50 DR THE ABOVE ENTRY INDICATES THAT THE CASH OF . 25,00,000/ - WAS TAKEN FROM BANK ON 07.02.2011 AND THE SAME DEPOSITED NEXT DAY INTO THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT. BUT IT IS FOUND FROM THE GOPALAPURAM BRANCH OF SBI BANK THROUGH A LETTER DATED 10.01.2014 BY CALLING FOR INFORMATION U NDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT THAT THE SAID CASH OF . 25, 00 , 000 / - WAS DEPOSITED B Y THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF ONLY ON 07.02.2 011 AND NOT ON 08.02.2011. THIS IMPROPER ACCOUNTING OF SAID CASH CREDIT ITSELF GIVES RAISE TO DOUBT ON THE CREDIBILITY OF SUCH TRANSACTION. THE PROPER ACCOUNTING OF SAID CASH CREDIT INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ON 07.02.2011 SHOULD HAVE BEEN AS BE LOW, DATE PARTICULARS DEBIT CREDIT BALANCE 07 - 02 - 2011 STATE BANK OF INDIA 25,00,000.00 - 22,95,277.5 CR FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE WILL BE N E GATIVE CASH BALANCE I.E. CREDIT BALANCE IN CASH BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE AS ON 07.02.2011. HEN CE IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE REASONS DISCUSSED AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE N ATURE AND SOURCE OF SUCH CASH CREDIT OF . 25,00,000/ - SATISFACTORILY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE CASH CREDIT OF .25,00,000/ - TO I.T.A. NO . 2237 /M/ 15 12 THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEX PLAINED CASH CREDITS U NDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 6.3 THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND FURNISHED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 13.10.2015 BY REITERATING THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE ONUS CAST UPON HIM WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND ACCORDINGLY, HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6.4 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HA S STRONGLY CONTENDED THAT WITHOUT MAKING ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION AND PLEADED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD BE DELETED. 6.5 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS O F AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6.6 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR THE CASH DEPOSIT OF .25,00,000/ - INTO HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT. IT IS TRUE THAT THE ONUS CAST UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CALLED DETAILS FROM THE SBI GOPALAPURAM UND ER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT, SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSING I.T.A. NO . 2237 /M/ 15 13 OFFICER WOULD HAVE SUMMONED SHRI S. SATHYAMURTHY AND RECORDED HIS STATEMENT FROM HIM WITH REGARD TO THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. UNTIL AND UNLESS PROPER ENQUIRIES ARE MADE WITH SHRI S. SATHYAMURTHY, THE ACTUAL FACTS WILL NOT COME TO THE LIGHT. UNDER THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE SHRI S. SATHYAMURTHY ALONG WITH HI S SAVING DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR SUMMONING SHRI S. SATHYAMURTHY FOR MAKING ENQUIRY AND VERIFICA TION OF HIS SAVINGS. IF SHRI S. SATHYAMURTHY FAILS TO APPEAR OR THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO PRODUCE SHRI S. SATHYAMURTHY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALONG WITH ALL DETAILS, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER STANDS SUSTAINED. WITH THE ABOVE DIRECTIONS, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF 15,00,000/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN A CASH DEPOSIT OF . 14,50,000/ - ON 19.02.2011 IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH THE STATE BANK OF INDIA ACCOUNT NUMBER 30725338862. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE I.T.A. NO . 2237 /M/ 15 14 ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF SOURCE OF THIS CASH CREDIT. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE STATED AS UNDER: THIS DEPOSIT IS OUT OF CASH BALANCE AVAILABLE ON THAT DATE. ON AN EARLIER DATE, THAT IS ON 06/02/2011 AN AMOUNT OF .15,00,000 WAS RECEIVED IN CASH AS AN ADVA NCE FOR SALE OF MY PROPERTY AT CENOTAPH ROAD. THE SALE DID NOT TAKE PLACE AND THIS ADVANCE OF .15,00,000 HAS BEEN RETURNED BEFORE 31 /03/11 AS .10,80,000 FROM MY BANK AND .4,20,000 BY CASH.' 7.1 THE A SSESSING O FFICER CONSIDERED THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSE E AND OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: FOR ANY UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS, THE BURDEN IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PERSON. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SUBMISSION THAT HE HAD RECEIVED T HE SAID CASH OF .15,00,000/ - AS AN ADVANCE AMOUNT FOR SALE OF HIS PROPERTY AT CENOTAPH ROAD ON 06.02.2011. BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON (FROM WHOM IT WAS RECEIVED) ITSELF. IN HIS REPLY, NOWHERE HE HAS MENTIONED ANY NAMES OF THE PERS ON FROM WHOM HE GOT SUCH CASH. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE OUT OF THE ABOVE SAID .15,00,000/ - , HE HAS DEPOSITED .14,50,000/ - INTO HIS BANK ACCOUNT ON 19.02.2011.BUT THE FOLLOWING ENTRY IS FOUND IN THE CASH BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE FOR FY 2010 - 11 WITH RES PECT TO THE SAID CASH CREDIT OF .15,00,000/ - , DATE PARTICULARS DEBIT CREDIT BALANCE 06 - 02 - 2011 ADVANCE RECEIVED TOWARDS SALE OF CENETOPH ROAD PROPERTY 15,00,000.00 21,94,722.50 DR 07 - 02 - 2011 STATE BANK OF INDIA 14,50,000.00 7,44,722. 50 DR THE ABOVE ENTRY INDICATES THAT THE CASH OF .15,00,000/ - WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE (SOURCE NOT EXPLAINED SATISFACTORILY) ON 07.02.2011 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED .14,50,000/ - NEXT DAY INTO THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT. BUT IT IS FOUND FROM THE GO PALAPURAM BRANCH OF SBI BANK THROUGH A LETTER DATED 10.01.2014 BY CALLING FOR INFORMATION U/S 133(6) THAT THE SAID CASH OF RS.15,00,000/ - WAS DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE I.T.A. NO . 2237 /M/ 15 15 HIMSELF ONLY ON 19.02.2011 AND NOT ON 07.02.2011. THIS IMPROPER ACCOUNTING OF SAID CASH CREDIT ITSELF GIVES RAISE TO THE DOUBT ON THE CREDIBILITY AND GENUINENESS OF SUCH TRANSACTION. ALSO THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THIS ADVANCE OF .15,00,000/ - HAS BEEN RETURNED BEFORE 31.03.2011 AS .10,80,000/ - FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND .4,20,000/ - BY CASH. BUT IT IS FOUND FROM THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT WITH RESPECT TO .10,80,000/ - THE ASSESSEE HAS HIMSELF WITHDRAWN .10,80,000/ - A S CASH ON 14.03.2011. AND WITH RESPECT TO .4,20,000/ - THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS RETURNED IN CASH. IN BOTH THE TRANSACTIONS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF SUCH TRANSACTION I.E. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED S UCH PAYMENT OF .15,00,000/ - IN CASH WITH ANY DOCUMENTARY PROOF. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY PROOF OF PAYMENT OF SUCH CASH AND ALSO HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY TO WHOM IT WAS PAID. 7.2 HENCE , IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE REASONS AS WELL AS SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF SUCH CASH CREDIT OF . 15,00, 000/ - INTO HIS CASH BOOK ON 06.02.2011 SATISFACTORILY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 7.3 THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED A WRITTEN REPLY VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 13.10.2015 REITERATING THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT NOT INDICATED AN Y DETAILS WITH REGARD TO THE IDENTITY OF PERSON FROM WHOM HE HAS RECEIVED THE ADVANCE, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7.4 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. I.T.A. NO . 2237 /M/ 15 16 7.5 WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. T HE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN A CASH DEPOSIT OF . 14,50,000/ - ON 19.02.2011 IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH THE STATE BANK OF INDIA ACCOUNT NU MBER 30725338862. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT HE H AS RECEIVED THE ABOVE AMOUNT IN C ASH AS AN A DVANCE FOR S ALE OF HIS PROPERTY AT CENOTAPH ROAD. SINCE, T HE SALE DID NOT T A K E PLACE , THE ADVANCE MONEY OF . 15, 00, 000 HAS BEEN RETURNED BEFORE 3 1. 03 .201 1 AS .10 ,80, 000/ - F R OM HIS B ANK ACCOUNT AND . 4,20, 000 BY C ASH . SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE IDENTITY OF PERSON FROM WHOM HE HAS RECEIVED THE ADVANCE, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WITH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. EVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS. THEREFORE, HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS STRONGLY CONTENDED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONFIRMATION LETTERS AND THE SAME WERE REJECTED WITHOUT PROPER ENQUIRY OR EXAMINATION OF THE CONCERNED PERSONS AND THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHO ULD BE DELETED. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED PAPER BOOK RUNNING PAGES UPTO 101. BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY SORT OF PARTICULARS WITH REGARD TO THE IDENTITY OF PERSON, CREDITWORTHINESS OR GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS OR ANY COPY OF CONFIRMATION LETTER F ROM THE CREDITOR AS CONTENDED BY THE LD. I.T.A. NO . 2237 /M/ 15 17 COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HAVE NO ALTERNATE BUT TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THUS, TH E GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 8. THE LAST GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF .11,00,000/ - . 8.1 AS PER THE INFORMATION UNDER AIR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING ONE MORE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH THE STATE BANK OF INDIA AT SARAVANAMPATTI. THIS BANK ACCOUNT WAS NOT REVEALED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS INCOME TAX RETURN AND NOR IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U NDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT. TH E AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS INFORMED THE A SSESSING O FFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING ANY SUCH BANK ACCOUNT. AS PER THE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE BANK, THE DETAILS OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT ARE AS UNDER: DATE PARTICULARS AMOUNT 17.09.2010 CASH DEPOSIT SELF 3,00,000/ - 04.11.2010 CASH DEPOSIT SELF 3,00,000 / - 11.12.2010 CASH DEPOSIT SELF 5,00,000 / - TOTAL 11,00,000/ - IN REPLY TO THE QUERIES OF THE A SSESSING O FFICER , THE ASSESSE E STATED AS UNDER: 'IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE YOU HAVE ALSO CALLED FOR EXPLANATION FOR CASH DEPOSITS AGGREGATING .11,00,000 IN MY ONE ANOTHER BANK ACCOUNT WITH SBI, SARAVNAMPATTI. I.T.A. NO . 2237 /M/ 15 18 THIS RELATES TO A BUSINESS VENTURE PLANNED WITH MY FRIEND R. VIGAYANANTHAN, CARRYING ON BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE SHREE BHAGAVATHI ENTERPRISES. R. VIJAYANANTHAN IS KNOWN TO ME FOR MORE THAN 10 YEARS. HE HAS 2 BUSINESSES - RICE MILL AND AUTOMOBILES. WE EMBARKED ON A PLAN TO TRADE BIG IN POSH AND LUXURY CARS, CARS WITH FANCY NUMBERS AND CARS OWNED BY LEADING P ERSONALITIES. HE ADVANCED MONEY TO ME ON 3 OCCASIONS, ALL AGGREGATING TO .11,00,000 TO PAY ADVANCE AND BLOCK IF ANY SUCH CAR BEING PUT TO SALE WOULD COME TO MY KNOWLEDGE. BEING INVOLVED IN POLITICAL AND PUBLIC SERVICE I GET ACQUAINTANCES AND INFORMATION O N THIS. HOWEVER, AT THAT TIME, DURING FY 10 - 11 DUE TO INCREASED HARNESS IN THE POLITICAL SCENARIO I COULD NOT CONCENTRATE AND FOLLOW UP ALL THIS SO AS TO COMMERCIALLY EXPLOIT. THE ADVANCES RECEIVED HAVE ALSO BEEN RETURNED TO R. VIJAYANANTHAN FROM THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT. YOU WOULD OBSERVE THAT SUCH ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM R. VINAYANANTHAN IN MY BANK ACCOUNT WAS RETAINED IN IT ONLY AND ANY REPAYMENT COULD BE MADE TO R. VIJAYANANTHAN WHENEVER HE INSISTED, AS NO CAR DEALS COULD BE FRUCTIFIED. I HAVE OBTAINED A CONF IRMATION LETTER FROM R. VIJAYANANTHAN ON THIS. THE SAME IS SUBMITTED TO YOU HEREWITH. 8.2 AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: FOR ANY UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS, THE BURDEN IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTA BLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PERSON. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SUBMISSION THAT HE HAD RECEIVED THE SAID CASH OF .11,00,000/ - AS AN ADVANCE AMOUNT FROM HIS FRIEND R. VIJAYANANTHAN. BUT THE ASSES SEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF R. VIJAYANARUHAN SATISFACTORILY. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED ONLY THE CONFIRMATION LETTER DATED 15.01.2014 OF R. VIJAYANANTHAN WHICH HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF R. VIJAYANANTHAN SATISFACTOR ILY. ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION I.E. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED SUCH RECEIPT OF .11,00,000/ - IN CASH WITH ANY DOCUMENTARY PROOF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY PROOF OF RECEIPT OF SUCH CASH FRO M R.VIJAYANANTHAN AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT AT ALL ACCOUNTED THE TRANSACTIONS OF THIS BANK ACCOUNT IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS (NEITHER IN CASH BOOK NOR IN BANK I.T.A. NO . 2237 /M/ 15 19 BOOK). THIS ITSELF GIVES RAISE TO DOUBT ON THE CREDIBILITY OF SOURCE OF SUCH CASH DEPOSITS. ONLY AFTER A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ON THE SAID CASH DEPOSITS WAS ISSUED, THE ASSESSEE RESPONDED WITH SOME EXPLANATION IN HIS SUBMISSION TO THE SHOW CAUSE. UNLESS THE SCRUTINY IS DONE, THIS CONCEALME NT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN UNEARTHED I.E. EXCEPT FOR THE EFFORTS OF THE DEPARTMENT, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE REVEALED THIS INFORMATION OF HAVING A BANK ACCOUNT IN SARAVANAMPATTI BRANCH OF SBI. AS POINTED OUT ABOVE (PARA 4), EVEN WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE DETAILS OF ALL BANK ACCOUNTS AND COPIES OF THE BANK STATEMENTS OF THE SAME DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD ONLY ONE SAVINGS BANK A/C IN GOPALAPURAM (CHENNAI) IN SBI HAVING A/C NO. 30725338862. 8.3 HENC E IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE REASONS DISCUSSED AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF SUCH MONEY OF .11 , 00 , 000 / - SATISFACTORILY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADDED THE SAID AMOUNT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAIN ED MONEY U NDER SECTION 69A OF ACT. 8.4 THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSE E FILED A WRITTEN REPLY VIDE LETTER DATED 13.10.2015 DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING BY REITERATING THE SAME SUBMISSIONS AS MADE B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER . THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED A CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM SHRI R. VIJAYANATHAN AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE CONFIRMATION LETTER, IT IS REVEALED THAT IT IS A NARRATIVE STORY WHICH IS NOT BASED ON ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN THE SHAPE OF THE RELEVANT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CONFIRMATION. THERE IS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THESE TWO PERSONS HAD PREPARED SOME PROJECT OF THE NATURE DISCUSSED IN THE CONFIRMATION LETTER. THERE IS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO PROVE THAT THE ADVANCES WERE RECEIVED FROM A PARTICULAR PERSON OR PARTY FOR THE I.T.A. NO . 2237 /M/ 15 20 PURPOSE MENTIONED IN THE CONFIRMATION CERTIFICATE. THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION IS EFFECTED IN CASH WITH THE ALLEGED CUSTOM ERS AND ALSO WITH THE PRESENT ASSESSEE, WHICH IS QUITE AN ABNORMAL THING TO BE NOTICED. NEVERTHELESS, ALL SUCH TRANSACTIONS MUST GET REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED FOR THE PURPOSE BY THE SAID ENTITY. THERE IS NO EXCEPTION TO THIS THAT THE AP PELLANT WAS SIMPLY A CUSTODIAN OF THE MONEY. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE APPELLANT AND THE OTHER PERSON WHO HAD ADVANCED RS.25,00,0001 - , HAD CONSTITUTED ANY ENTITY AS FIRM OR A COMPANY TO CARRY OUT THE PROPOSED BUSINESS. THE ALLEGED TRANSACTIONS CANNOT PRECEDE THE FORMATION OF THE ENTITY. AND EQUALLY THE SAID ALLEGED TRANSACTIONS CANNOT REMAIN UNRECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO THE CONTENTION OF THE CREDITOR THAT HE HAD REFUNDED THE CASH TO THE PARTIES WHO HAD ADVANCED T HE MONEY. THERE IS NO PAN AND ITR DETAILS OF THE SAID CREDITOR PROVIDED TO THE A.O. THERE ARE NO BANK ACCOUNT DETAILS OR THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE CREDITOR REFLECTING THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE SAID AMOUNT, GIVEN TO THE A.O. THEREFORE, WITHOUT ANY DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCES AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT AND THE SAID THE CREDITOR, THE SUBMISSIONS AND CONFIRMATION LETTER HAVE ONLY A NARRATIVE VALUE. HENCE, IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST UPON HIM TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION, THE GENUINENESS OF THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON MAKING THE ADVANCES AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR. ACCORDINGLY, THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.11,00,000 / - EFFECTED UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT, IS SUSTAINED. 8.5 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 8.6 WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF .11,00,00 0/ - , OTHER THAN THE PIECE OF PAPER IN THE FORM OF CONFIRMATION LETTER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT U NTIL AND UNLESS PROPER ENQUIRIES ARE MADE WITH SHRI R. VIJAYANATHAN, THE ACTUAL FAC TS WILL NOT COME TO THE LIGHT. UNDER THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE I.T.A. NO . 2237 /M/ 15 21 ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE SHRI R. VIJAYANATHAN ALONG WITH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, ETC. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER F OR VERIFICATION. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR SUMMONING SHRI R. VIJAYANATHAN UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT FOR MAKING ENQUIRY AND VERIFICATION OF HIS SAVING S. IF SHRI R. VIJAYANATHAN FAILS TO APPEAR OR THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO PRODUCE SHRI R. VIJAYANATHAN BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALONG WITH ALL DETAILS AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ADDITION OF . 11,00,000/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER S TANDS SUSTAINED. WITH THE ABOVE DIRECTIONS, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE AHMEDABAD BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT V. GAURANG MANIBH AI PATEL IN I.T.A. NO. 322/AHD/2013 DATED 13.01.2016 AND ALSO FILED COPY OF VARIOUS CASE LAW IN THE PAPER BOOK. THE PRIMARY REQUIREMENT OF AN ASSESS EE IS TO FURNISH FULL DISCLOSURE OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND FURNISHING COMPLETE INFORMATION INCLUDING BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS, PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, BALANCE SHEET, IDENTITY OF CASH CREDITOR, CONFIRMATION OF THE CASH CREDIT, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION . UNTIL AND UNLESS THE ASSESSEE FURNISH ALL TRUE AND COMPLETE PARTICULARS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND JUST FILING ONE PIECE OF PAPER IN THE FORM OF I.T.A. NO . 2237 /M/ 15 22 CONFIRMATION, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT ESCAPE FROM HIS RESPONSIBILITY AND THE ONUS LIES ON THE ASSESSEE TILL FURNISHING THE DETAILS AS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THERE IS N O DECISION OF ANY COURT EXISTS THAT WITHOUT FURNISHING BASIC REQUIREMENT OF DETAILS AND EXPLANATIONS TO THE QUERIES TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT ESCAPE FROM THE ONUS CAST UPON HIM. THUS, THE VARIOUS DECIS IONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE S CASE AND ARE REJECTED. 10 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 24 TH AUGUST, 201 6 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 24 . 0 8 .201 6 VM/ - / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT , 2. / RESPONDENT , 3. ( ) / CIT(A) , 4. / CIT , 5. / DR & 6. / GF.