K.Karuppasamy, Coimbatore V. ACIT Cen Circle 1, Coimbatore

ITA 2983/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5334 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Business income; Search and seizure; Source of fund; Set aside
• Section: 69C; 69

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , , [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./I.T.A. NOS. 2679, 2982 & 2983/CHNY/2017 ! / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-1 3. K. KARUPPASAMY, 3, RAJAMATHA STREET, NEAR TAUTA NAGAR, VADAVALLI, COIMBATORE 641 041. [PAN AGBPK 9040M] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, COIMBATORE ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) '# $ % / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. B. RAMAKRISHNAN, FCA &' '# $ % /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. R. CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR, ADDL. CIT. ( ) $ * /DATE OF HEARING : 12-06-2019 +,! $ * /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21-08-2019 / O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS)- 18, CHENNAI (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS CIT(A)) DATED 15.09.2017, ITA NOS.2679, 2982 & 83/17 :- 2 -: 18.09.2017 AND 18.09.2017 RESPECTIVELY FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEARS 2009-10, 2011-12 AND 2012-2013. 2. SINCE, THE IDENTICAL FACTS AND ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE THE SAME VIDE THIS C OMMON ORDER. 3. FIRST WE TAKE UP APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.2679/CHNY/2017, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 FOR ADJUDICATION. 4. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1 ) THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IS AGAINST LAW AND FAC TS OF THE CASE. 2) THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ACC EPTED AOS ORDER MECHANICALLY AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBM ISSION OF THE APPELLANT. 3) THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN TH E BANK STATEMENT AND MORTGAGE LOAN DETAILS FILED BY THE AP PELLANT. 4) THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAVING ACCEPTED THE T OTAL INCOME OUGHT NOT TO HAVE TREATED THE REPAYMENT AS ON EXPEN DITURE U/S. 69C OF INCOME TAX ACT1961. 5) THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDE RED THE SOURCE OF INCOME AS FOLLOWS: AGRICULTURAL INCOME : RS.1,75,000 RENTAL INCOME : RS.2,10,000 INTEREST INCOME : RS.1,30,474 .............................. G5,15,474/- -------------------------- USED FOR THE REPAYMENT OF LOAN. ITA NOS.2679, 2982 & 83/17 :- 3 -: 6)THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE MERE LY REPEATED THE AOS ORDER EVEN AFTER THE INCOME DECLARED AND T HE PAYMENT MADE TO BANK TO THE TUNE OF RS. 3,05,000. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE APPELLANT PRAYS TH AT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED AND JUSTICE MAY BE RENDERED. 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: THE APPELLANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSIN ESS OF REAL ESTATE. THERE WAS SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS CO NDUCTED IN THE CASE OF ONE SHRI. D. RAMAGOPAL ON 27.11.2013. DURIN G THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, CERTAIN INCRIMINATING MATERIALS BELON GING TO THE APPELLANT WERE STATED TO BE FOUND. SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/S .148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WAS ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT ON 28.03.2016. IN RESPONSE TO WHICH, ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED LETTER DATED 22.04.2016 STATING THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INC OME FILED ON 20.08.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 BE TREAT ED AS RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S.148 OF THE ACT. SUBSE QUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS INTIMATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THA T ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME WAS TREATED AS INVALID AND THEREFORE CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FILE FRESH RETURN OF INCOME AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.148 OF T HE ACT ON 09.05.2016 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF G2,78,582/-. D URING THE COURSE OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FO UND THAT ASSESSEE ITA NOS.2679, 2982 & 83/17 :- 4 -: HAD REPAID A SUM OF G3,05,000/-, OUT OF G16,00,000 /- LOAN AVAILED FROM UCO BANK, KARUR PRIOR TO 31.03.2008 AND SOURCE FOR THE REPAYMENT OF LOAN WAS EXPLAINED BY WAY OF AGRICULTU RAL INCOME OF G1,75,000/-, RENTAL INCOME OF G2,10,000/- AND INTE REST INCOME OF G1,30,474/-. HOWEVER, THE SAID EXPLANATION OFFERE D WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY HOLDING THAT REPAYMEN T OF LOAN AMOUNT WAS NOT ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ACCO RDINGLY MADE AN ADDITION OF G3,05,000/- VIDE ORDER DATED 24.11.2016 PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT. 6. B EING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ADDITION, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VID E IMPUGNED ORDER CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE APPELLANT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TH E LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME, RENTAL INCOME AND I NTEREST INCOME WERE ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. SR. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. ITA NOS.2679, 2982 & 83/17 :- 5 -: 9. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPE AL RELATES TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF REPAYMENT OF LOAN OF G3,05,0 00/- TO THE UCO BANK, KARUR. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF G1,75,000/-, RENTAL INCOME AND INTEREST INCOME AND THE SAME SHO ULD BE TREATED AS AMOUNT AVAILABLE FOR REPAYMENT OF LOAN IN THE ABSEN CE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT BRO UGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE UTI LIZED FOR SOME OTHER PURPOSE. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NO T JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF G3,05,000/- WITHOUT GIVING ANY VALID REASON. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT REPAYMENT OF LOAN AMOUNT WAS NOT ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, AS THIS CANNO T BE REASON FOR MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. THUS, WE DELETE THE ADDITION OF G3,05,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE APPE AL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.2679/CHNY/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 ST ANDS ALLOWED. 11. NOW, WE TAKE UP APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.29 82/ CHNY/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012 FOR ADJUDIC ATION. ITA NOS.2679, 2982 & 83/17 :- 6 -: 12. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL: 1) THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ORDER IS AGAINST LA W AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2) THE CIT (A) OUGHT TO NOT TO HAVE REJECTED THE OP ENING THE BALANCE OF RS. 9,90,000 AS ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM TH E PARTIES WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE PREVIOUS YEAR ASSESSMENT OR DER (AY: 20 10-11). 3) THE CIT (APPEALS) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE CONFIRMED TH E ADVANCES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 24,75,000 RECEIVED AND CONFIRMED BY THE PARTNERS AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME O F THE APPELLANT WITHOUT APPRISING THE CORRECT FACT. 4) THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE CORRECT FACT AND MERELY ADDED TO RS. 19,70,000 AS INVESTMENT U/S. 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT1961. 5) THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO ALLOW THE LIC CLAIM TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,40,000. 6) THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO ALLOW THE AGRICULTUR AL INCOME AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT TO AN EXTENT OF RS. 5,2 7,500. 7) THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDE RED THE ADDITION MADE U/S. 69 BY ACCEPTING THE APPELLAN TS CLAIM OF SOURCE FOR CARRYING OUT REPAIRS TO AN EXTENT OF RS.4,50,000 BY WAY OF CHEQUE TO MR. SAKTHIVEL TOWARDS NSR LAND, SAIBABA COLONY, COIMBATORE. 8) THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAVING ACCEPTED THE S ALE OF PROPERTY TO MR. KANNAN AND OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED T HE AMOUNT OF RS. 30,00,000 IN THE OPENING BALANCE AS A SOURCE OF INVESTMENT. 9) THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDE RED THE GENUINE CLOSURE OF BUSINESS AND COLLECTION OF A MOUNT GIVEN OUTSIDERS OUT OF THE UCO BANK MORTGAGE LOAN B EFORE REJECTING THE SAME. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT HE H AS NOT FILED ANY BALANCE SHEET RELATING TO THE FINANCE BUS INESS FOR THIS YEAR. ITA NOS.2679, 2982 & 83/17 :- 7 -: 10) THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AS WELL AS AO BOTH H AVE FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE DEAL OF THE BUSINESS VENTURE AND COURT DISPUTE RELATING TO THE PROPERTY. 11) THE CIT (APPEALS) AS WELL AS AO HAVE FAILED TO NOTE THE DISPUTE AND OCCUPANCY OF THE DIFFERENT PEOPLE IN TH E PROPERTY. 12) THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILS TO APPRECIATE THE CONFI RMATION LETTER FILED WITH THE AO AS WELL AS THE PERSONAL AP PEARANCE OF THE PARTIES. 13) THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSID ERED THE OPENING BALANCE OF RS. 49,50,550 FULLY BEFORE C ONSIDERING THE PARTIAL RELIEF. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE APPELLANT P RAYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED AND JUSTICE MAY BE RENDER ED . 13. THE APPELLANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSIN ESS OF REAL ESTATE. THERE WAS SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS CON DUCTED IN THE CASE OF ONE SHRI. D. RAMAGOPAL ON 27.11.2013. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS, CERTAIN INCRIMINATING MATE RIALS BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT STATED TO HAVE BEEN SEIZED. ACCORDING LY, NOTICE U/S.153C OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 07.07.2015 REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. IN RESPONSE, NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE AS SESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, COIMBATORE (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS AS SESSING OFFICER) ON ITA NOS.2679, 2982 & 83/17 :- 8 -: 30.03.2016 PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S153C OF THE ACT A T TOTAL INCOME OF G1,31,32,450/-. WHILE DOING SO, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER MADE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS. 1 LAND AT NSR ROAD 65,49,000 2 LAND AT PONNAYYARAJAPURAM 12,50,000 3 AGRICULTURAL LAND AT KARUMBAPALAYAM 15,88,355 4 LAND AND BUILDING AT NARASIMMANAYAKANPALAYAM 10,90,000 5 LAND AT PALANI 5,00,000 WHEN THE APPELLANT WAS CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN THE S OURCE FOR THE INVESTMENTS IN THE ABOVE PROPERTIES, IT WAS MENTIO NED THAT INVESTMENTS WERE MADE OUT OF OPENING CASH BALANCE O F G49,50,550/-, AGRICULTURAL AND BUSINESS INCOME OF RS.15,67,840 /-, ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM THE PARTIES AGAINST SALE OF PROPERTY IN PONNAYARAJAPURAM LAND OF G24,75,000/- AND ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM SALE OF HOUSE PROPERTY SITUATED AT VAYYAPURI NAGAR , KARUR FROM ONE SHRI. S.KANNAN G30,00,000/- VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 25 .02.2010, LOAN FROM LIC OF G1,40,000/- AND LOAN FROM ALAGAPPA CHET TIAR G20,00,000/-, LIC POLICY SURRENDERED AND MATURED AMOUNT G4,68,514 /- AND LOAN RECEIVED FROM UCO BANK AND PRIVATE PARTIES G19,70, 000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISBELIEVED THE EXPLANATION O F THE ASSESSEE ON ITA NOS.2679, 2982 & 83/17 :- 9 -: AN AMOUNT OF G30,00,000/- RECEIVED AS ADVANCE AGAI NST SALE OF HOUSE PROPERTY AT VAYYAPURI NAGAR, KARUR FROM ONE SHRI . S. KANNAN IN TERMS OF SALE AGREEMENT DATED 25.02.2010 FOR TWO R EASONS (I) THE SALE AGREEMENT WAS NOT SIGNED BY SHRI. S. KANNAN W HO IS THE BUYER OF THE PROPERTY AND (II) THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SHO W THE SOURCE OF SHRI. S. KANNAN FOR PAYMENT OF G30,00,000/- AND CO NSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD ONLY ON 29.01.2016, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT RECEIPT OF ADVANCE OF G30,00,000/- I N CASH ON 25.02.2010 CANNOT BE BELIEVED. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ALSO DISBELIEVED REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF G9 ,90,000/- RECEIVED AS ADVANCE FROM THE FOLLOWING PARTIES. APPASAMY C 1,60,000 DURAISAMY 2,00,000 KARUPPANNA GOUNDER 2,00,000 RAMASAMY N 50,000 SELLATHAL 1,00,000 THANGAVEL 2,80,000 TOTAL -------------------- 9,90,000/- -------------------- FOR THE REASON THAT NONE OF THE PARTIES HAD SOURCES FOR THE MONEY GIVEN AND THIS EXPLANATION WAS NOT GIVEN DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDING. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DISBELIEVED OPENING ITA NOS.2679, 2982 & 83/17 :- 10 -: BALANCE OF G49,50,550/- IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVID ENCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DISBELIEVED ADVANCES RECEIVE D FROM THE FOLLOWING PARTIES FOR PURCHASE OF LAND AT PONNAYAR AJAPURAM. 1 C. APPASAMY - 60,000/- 2 CHELLADURAI - 6,00,000/- 3 CHELLAMUTHU - 1,50,000/- 4 DURAISAMY - 2,00,000/- 5 KARUPPANNAGOUNDER - 2,00,000/- 6 PALANISAMY - 1,25,000/- 7 N. RAMASWAMY - 1,25,000/- 8 SAKTIVEL - 7,35,000/- 9 SELLATHAL - 1,00,000/- 10 SUBRAMANIAN C - 1,80,000/- TOTAL -------------- 24,75,000/- -------------- FOR THE REASON THAT NONE OF THE PARTIES HAD VERIFIA BLE SOURCES OF INCOME AND THE TRANSACTION HAD TAKEN PLACE IN CASH . THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT AGREEMENT FOR ACQ UISITION OF LAND AT POONAYARAJAPURAM WAS ENTERED ON 24.09.2010 AND THE ADVANCE WAS STATED TO HAVE RECEIVED MUCH EARLIER AND NO SUCH CLAIM WAS MADE DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, DISBELIEVED THE EXPL ANATION GIVEN FOR ADVANCE RECEIVED AGAINST SALE OF PROCEEDS AT POO NAYARAJAPURAM. ITA NOS.2679, 2982 & 83/17 :- 11 -: THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DISBELIEVED TRANSACTION OF LOAN AMOUNT OF G19,70,000/-, SINCE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVE T HE LOAN TRANSACTION. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER BELIEVED AGRICULT URAL INCOME AND BROUGHT TO TAX. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AL SO BROUGHT TO TAX INVESTMENT MADE IN LAND AT NSR ROAD AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS INCLUDING A SUM OF G4,50,000/- FOR REALIZATION OF S AID PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DISBELIEVED G20,50,000/- STA TED TO HAVE RECEIVED FROM SHRI.KANNAN AGAINST SALE OF PROPERTY AT KARUR AND ACCORDINGLY BROUGHT TO TAX SUM OF G1,25,63,050/-. 14. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ADDITIONS, AN APPEAL W AS PREFERRED BEFORE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDE R HELD THAT ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED OPENING BALANCE SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO G34,27,090/- AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF ACCEPTED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF G12,56,050/-. IN RESPECT O F ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM SHRI. KANNAN OF G20,50,000/-, THE LD. CIT(A) OPINED THAT NO ADDITION WAS CALLED FOR, SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HIMSELF ASSESSED CAPITAL GAINS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011. THUS, THE LD. CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. 15. AGGRIEVED BY THAT PART OF THE LD. CIT(A) ORDER, WHI CH IS AGAINST ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E US. IT IS CONTENDED ITA NOS.2679, 2982 & 83/17 :- 12 -: THAT LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE ADDIT ION OF G9,90,000/- BEING ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM PARTIES AGAINST SALE OF PROPERTY AT PONNAIARAJAPURAM AS THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS WERE F ILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SOME OF THE PARTIES IN PERSON HAD CONFIRMED THE FACTUM OF HAVING ADVANCED THE MONEY AGAINST PURCH ASE OF PROPERTY AT PONNAIARAJAPURAM. REGARDING ADVANCE RECEIVED FRO M VARIOUS PARTIES TO THE TUNE OF G24,75,000/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF PUR CHASE OF LAND IN POONNAIARAJPURAM, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIV E CONTENTED THAT CONFIRMATION LETTERS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSE SSING OFFICER FROM THE CONCERNED PARTIES AND SOME OF THEM HAD APPEA RED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CONFIRMED THE PAYMENT OF ADVA NCE. SIMILARLY, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT HAVE CON FIRMED THE ADDITION OF G19,70,000/- BEING AMOUNT DRAWN FROM UCO BANK BY WAY OF MORTGAGE LOAN AND REALIZATION OF G3,75,000/- FROM THE DEBTORS. FURTHER, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN AVAILED FROM LIC OF G1,40,000/-. SIMILARLY IT IS CONTENDED THAT LOWER AUTHORITIES OU GHT NOT HAVE RESTRICTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO G4,72,500/- IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF G12,56,050/- WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. T HEREFORE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF G10,00,000/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT VERY HIGH. AS REGARDS TO THE ADDITION OF G4,50,000 /- ON ACCOUNT OF ITA NOS.2679, 2982 & 83/17 :- 13 -: RENOVATION IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY SITUATED AT NSR R OAD, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY WAY OF CHEQUE IN F.Y. 20 12-13 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AND NO ADDITION SHOULD B E MADE IN THE CURRENT YEAR. 16. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. SR. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 17. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL RELATES TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS MADE IN PURCHASE OF LAN D AT NSR ROAD. IT IS MATTER OF RECORD THAT ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED P URSUANT TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S.153C OF THE ACT. IT IS SETTLED LEGAL POS ITION OF LAW THAT RECOURSE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE A CT CAN BE MADE ONLY BASED ON THE SEIZED MATERIAL PERTAINING TO THE ASSE SSEE FOUND IN THE SEARCHED PERSON. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND MATERIAL PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE SEAR CH PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF ONE SHRI. D. RAMAGOPAL WHICH REVEALS UN EXPLAINED INVESTMENTS MADE IN NSR ROAD OF G70,00,000/-. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS NOT CLEAR AS WHAT WAS T HE MATERIAL FOUND SUGGESTING THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE UNEXPLAINED INVES TMENT FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT NSR ROAD. ADMITTEDLY, THE PROPERTY WAS ITA NOS.2679, 2982 & 83/17 :- 14 -: BOUGHT BY REGISTERED SALE DEED, WHETHER THE ASSESS EE HAD SOURCE OF INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IS AN ISSUE WHICH REQUIRES THOROUGH EXAMINATION IN THE RESPECTIVE ASS ESSMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS SILENT AS TO CONT ENTS OF THE SEIZED MATERIALS. THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT MATERI AL SEIZED SUGGEST ANY UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS IN THE SAID LAND. HOWEVER D URING THE COURSE OF PRESENT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED AN EXPLANATION IN SUPPORT OF THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS MADE IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. THE SEIZED MATERIAL DOES NOT CONTAIN A NYTHING TO SHOW THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE BELIEVED OR FALSE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE IMPUGNED ADDITIO NS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN THE EYES OF LAW AS THE ADDITION WAS NO T MADE BASED ON THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEA RCHED MATERIAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTH ORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.2982/CHNY/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IS AL LOWED. ITA NO.2983/CHNY/ 2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-1 3 19. SINCE, THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE IDENTIC AL TO THE FACTS IN ITA NO.2982/CHNY/2017, FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED THEREIN, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THE SAME LINES INDICATED IN ITA NOS.2679, 2982 & 83/17 :- 15 -: APPEAL ITA NO.2982/CHNY/2017 SUPRA. HENCE, THE ABOV E CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 20. TO SUMMARIZE THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSE E IN ITA NOS.2679, 2982 AND 2983/CHNY/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YE ARS 2009-10, 2011-12 AND 2012-2013 STAND ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2019, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER - ) / CHENNAI . / DATED: 21ST AUGUST, 2019. KV $ &*01 21!* / COPY TO: 1 . '# / APPELLANT 3. ( 3* () / CIT(A) 5. 16 &*7 / DR 2. &' '# / RESPONDENT 4. ( 3* / CIT 6. 8 9) / GF