K.Abdu Rahiman, Palakkad V. DCIT, Trichur

ITA 320/COCH/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7486 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 02-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHANTOM BOSS
• Keywords: Gift; Principle of natural justice; Revised return
• Section: 153A; 139

Judgement Text

ITA NOS 317 TO 323/C/2011. 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI B P JAIN , A M & GEORGE GEORGE.K , J M ITA NO S. 317 TO 323/COCH/2011 . (ASST YEAR S 2001 - 02 TO 2007 - 08 ) MR K ABDUL RAHIMAN KAKKATTIL HOUSE PERUMUDIYOOR PATTAMBI PALAKKADF VS THE DYCOMMR OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE THRISSUR ( APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. ADFPR6547K ASSESSEE BY SH ANIL D NAIR REVENUE BY SHRI SHANTOM BOSS, CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING 2 ND FEB 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12 TH F EB 2016 ORDER PER BENCH : THESE SEVEN APPEALS, AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS, ALL DATED 20 TH DEC 2010, OF THE LD CIT(A) - I, KOCHI AND RELATE TO THE AYS 2001 - 02 TO 2007 - 08 RESPECTIVELY. 2 THE ISSUES INVOLVED ALL THE APPEALS, ARE ALMOST IDENTICAL, AN D PERTAIN TO THE SAME ASSESSEE; THEREFORE, THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 3 THE ASSESSEE , IN DIFFERENT YEARS , HAS RAISED THE GROUNDS AS DETAILED BELOW : ITA NOS 317 TO 323/C/2011. 2 GROUNDS FOR THE AY 2001 - 02: 1 THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IS AGAINST LAW, FACTS AND NATURAL JUSTICE . 2 THE ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG IN REJECTI NG THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE APPELLANT TO PROVE THAT OPENING FUNDS AMOUNTING RS . 702721/ - IS AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT AND WENT WRONG IN MAKING ADDITIO N OF THE AMOUNT . 3 ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG IN REJECTING THE SOURCE BY WAY OF LOAN FROM A . AHMED TO THE EXTENT OF RS . 12 , 82,OOO/ - SU STAINED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS. ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT NECESSARY EVIDENCE WA S PLACED BEFORE HI M TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN. 4 ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG IN ESTIMAT ING THE PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF THE APPELLANT AT RS . 90,0001 - WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE YEAR , THE STYLE OF LIVING OF THE APPELLANT AND OTHER RELEVANT FACT ORS AND MAK ING ADDITION TO THE INCOME ON THAT BASIS . 5 ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT FOR ADDUCING FURTHER EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO THE LOANS AND GIFTS RECEIVED BY TH~ APPELLANT AND WENT WRONG IN REJECTING THE SAME. 6 ASSES SING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THAT S UFFICIENT SOURCES AVAILABLE IN THE FIRM FOR MEETING THE DEFICIENCY IF ANY IN I NVESTMENTS AND EXPENSES OF THE APPELLANT . 7 SUCH OTHER GROUNDS AS MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARIN G / GROUNDS FOR THE AY 200 2 - 03 : 1 THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGAINST LAW, FACTS AND NATURAL JUSTICE . 2 ASSESS I NG OFFICER WENT WRONG IN REJECTING THE SOURCE BY WAY OF GIFT FROM A AHMED TO THE EXTENT OF RS . 3 , OO , OOOI - .. ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT NECESSARY EVIDE NCE WAS PLACED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT . 3 ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG I N ESTIMATING THE PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF THE APPELLANT AT RS . 1 , 10 , 000/ WITHOUT CONS I DERING THE YEAR , THE STYLE OF LIVING OF TH E APPELLANT AND OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS AND MAK I NG ADD I T I ON TO THE I NCOME ON THAT BASIS. 4 ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPO R TUNITY TO THE APPELLANT FOR ADDUCING FURTHER EVIDENCE I N REGARD TO THE L OANS AND GIFTS RECE I VED BY THE APPELLANT AND WENT WRONG IN REJECTING THE SAME . 5 ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THAT SUFFICIENT SOURCES AVA I LABLE IN THE FIRM FOR MEETING THE DEFICIENCY IF ANY IN INVESTMENTS AND EXPENSES OF THE APPELLANT . ITA NOS 317 TO 323/C/2011. 3 6) SUCH OTHER GROUNDS AS MAY BE URGED AT T HE TIME OF HEARING. GROUNDS FOR THE AY 200 3 - 04 : 1 ) THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGAINST LAW, FACTS AND NATURAL JUSTICE . 2 ) ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG IN REJECTING THE SOURCE BY WAY OF ADVANCE FROM A . AHMED TO THE EXTENT OF RS . 6 , 33,3001 - . ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT NECESSARY EVIDENCE WAS PLACED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THE GAMINESS OF THE ADVANCE. 3 ) ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG I N ESTIMATING THE MARRIAGE EXPENSES OF APPELLANT ' S DAUGHTER WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER A BOUT THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE AND THE NATURE EXPENSES INCURRED. THE ADDITION RS. 3 , 00 , 0001 MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT IS OUGHT TO BE REJECTED . 4 ) ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG IN ESTIMATING THE PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF THE APPELLANT AT RS . 1 . 10 , 0001 WI THOUT CONS I DERING THE YEAR , THE STYLE OF LIVING OF THE APPELLANT AND OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS AND MAKING ADDITION TO THE INCOME ON THAT BASIS. 5 ) ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT FOR ADDUCING FURTHER EVIDENCE IN RE GARD TO THE LOANS AND GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AND WENT WRONG IN REJECTING THE SAME . 6 ) ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THAT SUFFICIENT SOURCES AVAILABLE IN THE F I RM FOR MEETING THE DEFICIENCY IF ANY IN INVESTMENTS AND EXPENSES OF THE AP PELLANT . 7 ) SUCH OTHER GROUNDS AS MAY BE URGED AT THE T I ME OF HEARING. GROUNDS FOR THE AY 200 4 - 05 : 1 THE ORDER OF THE ASSESS I NG OFFICER IS AGAINST L AW , FACTS AND NATURAL JUSTICE. 2 THE ASSESSING OFF I CER OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DRAWN RS . 1 , 00 , 000/ - FROM THE FIRM WH I CH FUNDS IS AVA I LABLE WITH THE APPEL L ANT AND WENT WRONG IN MAKING ADDITION OF THE AMOUNT . 3 ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG IN REJECTING THE SOURCE BY WAY OF LOAN FROM V . MOHAMED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1 , 40,000 . ASSESSING OFFICER OU GHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT NECESSARY EVIDENCE WAS PLACED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THE GAMINESS OF THE LOAN . 4 ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG IN REJECTING THE SOURCE BY WAY OF GIFT FROM FRIENDS AND RELATIVES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.13,56 , 874/ - ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT NECESSARY EVIDENCE WAS PLACED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN . 5 ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG IN IGNORING REPAYMENT OF RS. 83,3001 - TO MIS . KOTAK INCLUDED IN THE REVISED CASH FLOW STATEMENT . ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG IN ITA NOS 317 TO 323/C/2011. 4 ESTIMATING THE PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF THE APPELLANT AT RS. 1,30 , 0001 - WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE YEAR , THE STYLE OF LIVING OF THE APPELLANT AND OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS AND MAKING ADDITION TO THE INCOME ON THAT BASI S . 6 ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT FOR ADDUCING FURTHER EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO THE LOANS AND GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AND WENT WRONG IN REJECTING THE SAME . 7 ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED T HAT SUFFICIENT SOURCES AVAILABLE IN THE FIRM FOR MEETING THE DEFICIENCY IF ANY IN INVESTMENTS AND EXPENSES OF THE APPELLANT . 8 SUCH OTHER GROUNDS AS MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. GROUNDS FOR THE AY 200 5 - 06 : 1 THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGAINST LAW , FACTS AND NATURAL JUSTICE. 2 ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG IN REJECTING THE SOURCE BY WAY OF LOANS AND GIFTS FROM AAHMED TO THE EXTENT OF RS . 17,OO , OOOI - AND FROM IBRAHIM RS . 1 , 70 , 000/ - . ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT NECESSARY EVID ENCE WAS PLACED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THE GENUINESS OF THE LOANS AND GIFTS . 3 ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG IN ESTIMATING THE PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF THE APPELLANT AT RS . 1,30 , 000/ - WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE YEAR, THE STYLE OF LIVI NG OF THE APPELLANT AND OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS AND MAKING ADDITION TO THE INCOME ON THAT BASIS . 4 ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT FOR ADDUCING FURTHER EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO THE LOANS AND GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE AP PELLANT AND WENT WRONG IN REJECTING THE SAME . 5 ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THAT SUFFICIENT SOURCES AVAILABLE IN THE FIRM FOR MEETING THE DEFICIENCY IF ANY IN INVESTMENTS AND EXPENSES OF THE APPELLANT . 6 SUCH OTHER GROUNDS AS MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING . GROUNDS FOR THE AY 200 6 - 07 : 1 THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGAINST LAW, FACTS AND NATURAL JUST I CE . 2 ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG IN REJECTING THE SOURCE BY WAY OF LOANS AND ADVANCES TO THE EXTENT OF RS . 9,33,3001 - . ASSES SING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT NECESSARY EVIDENCE WAS PLACED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THE GAMINESS OF THE LOAN. 3 ASSESS I NG OFFICE R WENT W R ONG I N ADDING RS . 50 , 000/ - AS UNEXPLA I NED SUNDRY CREDITORS WITHOUT ACCEPTING THE EXPLANATION OF T HE APPELLA N T . 4 ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG I N ESTIMATING THE PE R SONA L AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF THE APPELLANT AT RS . 1 , 50 , 000/ - W I THOUT CONSIDER IN G THE YEAR , THE STYLE OF LIVING OF THE APPELLANT AND OTHER RELEVANT FACTO R S AND MAKING ADDITION TO THE INCO ME ON THAT BAS I S . 5 ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG I N ADDING A SUM OF RS . 11 , 01 , 000/ - AS I NVESTMENT AND PROFIT OF THE BUSINESS VENTURE WITHOUT ACCEPTING THE EXPLANAT I ON OF THE ASSESSEE MADE CONSISTENTLY BOTH AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND AT T H E TIME OF ASSESSME NT . THE COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS FA I LED TO CONSIDER THE AFFIDAVIT PRODUCED BEFORE H I M IN THE ITA NOS 317 TO 323/C/2011. 5 PROPER PERSPECT I VE WHICH WOULD CLEARLY INDICATE T HAT THE APPELLANT ' S SHARE IN THE INVESTMENT IS ONLY RS . 42 , 250/ - DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR . THE COMMISIONER OF APP E ALS OUGHT OT HAVE ACCEPTED THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM AND DELETED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS . 11 , 01 , 000/ - AS REDUCED BY RS . 42,250/ - . 6 ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE E XTENT OF AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE APPELLANT BASED ON WHICH THE AGR I CULTURAL INCOME OF RS . 1, 80 , 000/ - RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT I S FAIR AND REASONABLE . ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG IN REJECTING THE AGRICULTURAL I NCOME AS A SOU RCE AND ADDING THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESEE . 7 ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG I N ADDING A SUM OF RS . 1 , 10 , 000/ - TOWARDS PURCHASE OF GOLD WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT GOLD HAS BEEN PURCHASED . 8 ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG IN IGNORING REPAYMENT OF RS . 83 , 300/ - INCLUDED I N THE R EVISED CASH FLOW TO KOTAK . 9 ASSES SING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUN I TY TO THE APPELLANT FOR ADDUCING FURTHER EVIDENCE I N REGARD TO THE L OANS AND GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AND WENT WRONG IN REJECTING THE SAME. GROUNDS FOR THE AY 200 7 - 08 : 1 THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF I CER IS AGAINST LAW , FACTS AND NATURAL JUSTICE . 2 ASSESSING OFF I CE R WENT WRONG I N REJECT I NG THE SOURCE BY WAY OF G I F T A ND LOAN TO THE EXTENT OF RS . 6 , 30 , 0001 - . ASSESS I NG OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE SEE N TH A T NECESSARY EV I DENCE WAS PLACED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THE G AMIN ES S OF T HE LOAN. 3 ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG IN ESTIMATING THE PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF THE APPELLANT AT RS . 1 , 50 , 000/ - WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE YEAR, THE STYLE OF LIVING OF THE APPELLANT AND OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS A ND MAKING ADDITION TO THE INCOME ON THAT BASIS. 4 ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE REVISED THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT WHERE THE REPAYMENT TO SUNDARAM FINANCE IS REFLECTED . ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG IN ADDING THE SUM TO THE INCOME . 5 ASSESSI NG OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE EXTENT OF AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE APPELLANT BASED ON WHICH THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS . 2,50 , 000/ - RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT IS FAIR AND REASONABLE. ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG IN REJECTING THE AGRICULT URAL INCOME AS A SOURCE AND ADDING THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESEE . 6 ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG IN REJECTING THE SOURCE FOR MEETING FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES AND MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS . 1 , 41 , 600/ - ON THIS ACCOUNT TO THE INCOME. 7 ASSESSING OFFIC ER OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT FOR ADDUCING FURTHER EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO THE LOANS AND GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AND WENT WRONG IN REJECTING THE SAME. 8 ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THAT SUFFICIENT SOURCE S AVAILABLE IN THE FIRM FOR MEETING THE DEFICIENCY IF ANY IN INVESTMENTS AND EXPENSES OF THE APPELLANT . 9 SUCH OTHER GROUNDS OR MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ITA NOS 317 TO 323/C/2011. 6 4 THE GROUND NO.1 IN ALL THE APPEALS IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND DO NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDI CATION; THEREFORE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 5 AS REGARDS GROUND NO.2 FOR THE AY 2001 - 02, THE BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS AS EMANATED FROM THE ORDER OF THE AO IN PARA 26 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED RS. 7,02,271/ - AS OPENING BALANCE IN THE CASH FLOW STA TEMENT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE OPENING BALANCE OF CASH FLOW STATEMENT ; BUT NO INFORMATION OR SOURCE WAS PROVIDED AND ACCORDINGLY, THE AO ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD CIT(A), AFTER OBTAINING THE REMAND REPORT F ROM THE AO, CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. 6 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PLACE ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF NRI GIFTS, OUT OF WHICH THE OPENING BALANCE H AS BEEN BUILT UP BY THE ASSESSEE, DESPITE BEING GIVEN A SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY BY THE LD CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE MATTER, ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WHO HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO. THIS GROUND, IS ACC ORDINGLY REJECTED. ITA NOS 317 TO 323/C/2011. 7 7 AS REGARDS GROUND NO.3, WHICH IS COMMON FOR THE AYS 2001 - 02 TO 2007 - 08; WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE GROUND FOR THE AY 2001 - 02 AND THE ORDER HEREIN BELOW SHALL BE IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE IN ALL THE YEARS. 7.1 THE FACTS , AS EMANATED FROM THE ORDER OF THE AO , ARE THAT IN THE RETURN FILED U/S 153A AND THE RETURN U/S 139 FOR THE AY 2007 - 08 THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED VARIOUS GIFTS AND LOANS WHICH WERE NOT CLAIMED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN. THE DETAILS OF SUCH GIFTS AND LOANS ARE AS UNDER: ASST YE AR NAME OF THE PERSON AMT OF GIFT RECEIVED AMT OF LOAN RECEIVED 2001 - 02(O/B) M AMMED 2,06,000 NIL 2001 - 02 M AMMED 12,82,000 NIL 2002 - 03 M AMMED 3,00,000 NIL 2003 - 04 NIL 50,000 NIL 2004 - 05 M AMMED IBRAHIM 11,43,8974 2,13,000 NIL NIL 2005 - 06 M AMMED IB RAHIM 12,00,000 NIL 5,00,000 1,70,000 2006 - 07 AMMED ADVANCES (NAME NO GIVEN) NIL - 1,00,000 8,33,300 2007 - 08 AMMED ABBU NIL NIL 5,30,000 1,00,000 43,94,874 22,33,300 NONE OF THE INFORMATION OR THE AFFIDAVIT WITH REGARD TO THE LOANS OR GIFTS HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF REPEATED REQUESTS MADE BY THE AO. NO BANK ACCOUNT OR SOURCE HAS BEEN EXPLAINED AND ACCORDINGLY, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF THE GIFTS/LOANS RECEIVED FROM MR AMMED WHICH ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A). ITA NOS 317 TO 323/C/2011. 8 8 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A), WHO AFTER OBTAINING THE REMAND REPORT DATED 15.10.2009 FROM THE AO HAS CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT FACTS AND THE PROVISIONS OF LAW WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE INVOLVED. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CERTAIN AFFIDAVITS WHICH HAVE BEEN DEALT BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION AS TO WHETHER IT IS A GIFT FROM M AMMED OR SOMETHING ELSE O R EVEN THE PRESENT STATUS OF THE LOAN IS NOT KNOWN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF GIFTS/LOANS TRANSACTIONS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF DONORS/LOANEES I.E. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY, CAPACITY AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD CIT (A), BY RELYING UPON VARIOUS CASE LAWS , HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) ON T HIS ISSUE. SINCE THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL IN ALL THE YEARS , RELEVANT TO AYS 200 1 - 02 TO 2007 - 08, HAVING RAISED DIFFERENT AMOUNTS , AS AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE LD C IT (A)S ORDER, OUR ORDER HEREIN ABOVE FOR AY 2001 - 02 SHALL BE IDENTICALLY APPLIC ABLE IN THE OTHER AYS I.E. 2002 - 03 TO 2007 - 08. GROUND S ON THE ISSUE IN ALL THE APPEALS, ARE ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 9 GROUND NO.4 IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF DIFFERENT AMOUNT IN THE AYS 20 01 - 02 TO 2007 - 08 ON IDENTICAL FACTS. WE ARE TAKING UP THE ISSUE FOR THE AY 2001 - 02 AND ITA NOS 317 TO 323/C/2011. 9 THE ORDER HEREIN BELOW SHALL BE IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE TO OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS ALSO. 10 THE FACTS IN THE CASE FOR THE AY 2001 - 02 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVID ED ANY AMOUNT FOR HIS PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES IN THE CASH FLOW. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS STATED THAT HIS WIFE FATHIMA WAS DOING MONEY LENDING BUSINESS FOR WHICH RETURN HAS BEEN FILED IN WARD 2, PALLAKAD. THE AS SESSEE HAD GIVEN SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 28.10.2008 FOR ESTIMATED ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. BUT NO COGENT EXPLANATION HAS BEEN FURNISHED. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE WAS LI VI NG WITH HIS WIFE AND 3 CHILDREN. IT WAS FURTHER S TATED THAT HIS DAUGHTER IS MARRED AND BOTH HIS SONS ARE SCHOOL GOING CHILDREN. HIS HOUSEHOLD EXPENSE WERE VERY LIMITED AND WOULD NOT EXCEED RS. 4000/ - PER MONTH. THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY, MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. THE LD CIT(A), AFTER OBTAINING THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO, CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. 11 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DECLARED ANY OUTGOINGS IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT FOR HIS PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM O F INCOME OF THE ASSESSEES WIFE, WE FIND THAT SHE HAS FILED RETURNS ONLY FOR THE AYS 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08 AND THAT TOO IN MARCH, 2008 AND THERE IS NO SUPPORTING ITA NOS 317 TO 323/C/2011. 10 EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE HER EARNING POTENTIAL, WHICH WAS CORROBORATED FROM THE FACTS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ACTION, SHE DEPOSED THAT SHE WAS ONLY A HOUSEWIFE AND WAS NOT EARNING ANY INCOME ON HER OWN. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRME D THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. GROUND NO.4 IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. AS MENTIONED ABOVE , THE ISSUE IN ALL OTHER YEARS IS IDENTICAL; ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUE IN OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS IS ALSO REJECTED. 12 NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF MARRIAGE EXPENSES. THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 3 LACS IN THE AY 2003 - 04. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE SMT FATIMA HAD DEPOSED IN ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.7 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN 100 SOVEREIGNS OF GOLD TO HER AND SHE DOES NOT KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY WAS SPENT ON THE MARRIAGE. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT WHOLE OF THE EXPENSES WERE BORNE BY HIS FATHER - IN - LAW. THE ASSESSE E WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE FOR SUCH CLAIM; BUT NO SUCH EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO, WHO ACCORDINGLY , ESTIMATED THE EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF MARRIAGE AND PURCHASE OF GOLD TO THE EXTENT OF RS 3 LACS AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE. THE LD CIT(A), AFTER OBTAINING THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO, CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. ITA NOS 317 TO 323/C/2011. 11 13 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR THE REASONS T HAT THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WAS NOT SUPPORTED WITH ANY EVIDENCE AND THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE EITHER BEFORE THE AO IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS OR BEFORE THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS OR EVEN BEFORE US. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRMED THE ORDE R OF THE LD CIT(A) AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2003 - 04 IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 14 NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT MADE TO MR V MOHAMMED. 14.1 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO MADE AN AD DITION OF RS. 1,40,000/ - FOR THE AY 2004 - 05 FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE BREAKUP OF THE SUNDRY DEBTORS AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,40,000/ - WHICH WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT RS. 1,40,000/ - WAS GIVEN TO MR V MOHAMMED THROUGH CHEQUE AND THE PAYMENT WAS REFLECTED IN THE RETURN OF MR MOHAMMED AS WELL AS IN THE REVISED CASH FLOW STATEMENT. THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE SINCE THERE W AS NO EVIDENCE PRODUCED WITH REGARD TO THE EXPLANATION AND ACCORDINGLY, HE ADDED RS. 1,40,000/ - TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD CIT(A), AFTER OBTAINING THE REMAND REPORT, CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. ITA NOS 317 TO 323/C/2011. 12 15 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM EITHER IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS OR EVEN IN THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ; THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A), WHO HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO ON THIS ISSUE. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE AY 2004 - 05 IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 16 NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 1 LAC MADE BY THE AO FOR THE AY 2004 - 05. 16.1 THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED RECEIPT OF RS. 1 LAC FROM THE FIRM WHEREIN THE CASH FLOW OF THE FIRM, THERE WAS NO CORRESPONDING OUTGO, MEANING THEREBY THE SAME HAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE CASH OUTFLOW OF THE FIRM AS CLAI MED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 1 LACS WHICH ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A). 17 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE OF THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 1 LAC, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A), WHO HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2004 - 05 IS REJECTED. ITA NOS 317 TO 323/C/2011. 13 18 NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO ADD ITION OF RS.83,300/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT MADE TO KOTAK MAHINDRA ACCOUNT. 18.1 THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 83,300/ - WITH RESPECT TO BALANCE IN THE KOTAK MAHIND RA ACCOUNT. THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF RS. 83,300/ - WHICH WAS NOT EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY, THE AO ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A). 19 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMI SSIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE FROM STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE EV ERY MONTH AS EMI @ RS. 83,300/ - ; BUT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE PAYMENT OF ONLY ONE INSTALLMENT OF RS. 8 3 ,300/ - WHICH WAS DULY CONSIDERED BY THE AO . ACCORDINGLY, THE COMPUTATION OF UNEXPLAINED OUTFLOW OF RS 83,300/ - HAS RIGHTLY BEEN ADDED BY THE AO TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2004 - 05 IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 20 AS REGA RDS R S. 91,630/ - FOR THE AY 2006 - 07, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO MADE THE ADDITION FOR THE REASON THAT THE BALANCE DUE TO KOTAK ITA NOS 317 TO 323/C/2011. 14 MAHINDRA WAS STAGNANT AND THE VEHICLE WOULD BE REPOSSESSED ON NONPAYMENT OF INSTALLMENT. THEREFORE, THE OUTFLOW IN RESPECT OF THE INSTALLMENT OF RS. 91,630/ - WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). 21 HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND RELEVANT MAT ERIAL ON RECORD, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A), WHO HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. THE GROUND FOR THE AY 2006 - 07 IS ACCORDINGLY, REJECTED. 22 NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 50,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDR Y CREDITORS. 22.1 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 50,000/ - FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR WHICH NO EVIDENCE WAS GIVEN IN SPITE OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S 142(1). THE LD CIT(A), AFTER OBTAINING THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PLACE ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE ABOVE CREDITORS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 50,000/ - E ITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR DURING THE REMAND PROCEE DINGS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF COGENT EVIDENCE; AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED. ITA NOS 317 TO 323/C/2011. 15 23 HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSAL OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A), W HO HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2006 - 07 IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 24 NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE BUSINESS VENTURE. 24.1 THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH TWO CASH RECEIPTS OF KUTTIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT WAS SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE ONE FOR RS. 10,01,000/ - AND THE OTHER ONE FOR RS. 43,250/ - . IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THEY RELATE TO AUCTION BY PANCHAYAT IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE AND SEVEN OTHERS JOINED TOGETHER AND PAID THE AMOUNT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN HIS INDIVIDUAL PAYMENT TOWARDS THE VENTURE AND HIS PARTNERS IN THE VENTURE AND ALSO ASKED TO PROVIDE THE DETAILS OF PROFIT E ARNED BY HIM IN THE VENTURE. IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE VENTURE WAS SHARED BY SEVEN PERSONS WHOSE NAME AND ADDRESSES WERE GIVEN; BUT THE AO FOUND NO NAME AND ADDRESSES. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ANSWER TO THE SPECIFIC QUESTION , ANOTHER OP PORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO TO EXPLAIN THE SAME. THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEES CASH FLOW STATEMENT FOR THE AY 2006 - 07 DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY PAYMENT TOWARDS KUTTI PURAM PANCHAYAT AND NOT ITA NOS 317 TO 323/C/2011. 16 EVEN THE ALLEGED SHARE OF THE VENTURE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY DETAILS OR EVIDENCE REGARDING THE CO - VENTURE OF RS. 10,01,000/ - THE AO ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO ALSO ADDED THE PROP OSED PROFIT FROM THE VENTURE. THUS, THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 11,01,000/ - WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2006 - 07. THE CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO, CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. 25 HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSAL OF THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WHO HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2006 - 07 ON THIS ISSUE , IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 26 NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME CLAIMED IN THE REVISED RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2006 - 07. THIS ISSUE IS COMMON FOR THE AY 2007 - 08. WE ARE TAKING UP THE ISSUE FOR THE AY 2006 - 07 AND THE ORDER HEREIN BELOW SHALL BE IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE TO OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO. 26.1 THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THE RETURN AS WELL AS CASH FLOW STATEMENT FOR THE AYS 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08 THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT IT HAD SUBSTANTIAL AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE AO OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE ORIGINAL RETURN FOR THE AY ITA NOS 317 TO 323/C/2011. 17 2006 - 07 DOES NOT SHOW THIS INCOME, THERE WERE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAS BEEN INTRODUCED IN THE POST SEARCH RETURNS IN ORDER TO PARTIALLY EXPL AIN THE SOURCE FOR INVESTMENT DETECTED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME. BUT THE ASSESSEE, VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 3.10.2008 FURNISHED ONLY THE DETAILS OF THE LAND WITHOUT FURNISHING THE DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL A CTIVITIES. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE ANY PROOF FOR EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS LIKE PURCHASE OF FERTILIZER, PAYMENT OF WAGES, REALIZATION ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE, PAYMENT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX FOR SUB STANTIATING HIS CLAIM OF HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME. SINCE SUCH AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAS NOT BEEN DECLARED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN , THE CLAIM OF HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME INTRODUCED AS THE SOURCE FOR INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED BY THE AO. IN T HE CASH FLOW STATEMENT FOR THE AY 2 006 - 07 & 2007 - 08 SUCH CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS RS. 1,80,000/ - & 2,50,000/ - WHICH WAS ADDED TO T HE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2006 - 07 &2007 - 08 RESPECTIVELY. 26.2 THE LD CI T(A), AFTER OBTAINING THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE SUBSTANTIATING EARNING OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE CIT(A) WAS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO THAT THE LAND AUTOMAT ICALLY DOES NOT TANTAMOUNT TO EARNING OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS 317 TO 323/C/2011. 18 27 HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSAL OF THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WHO HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE FOR THE AY 2006 - 07 & 2007 - 08 IS ACCORDINGLY, REJECTED. 28 NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF GOLD F OR THE AY 2006 - 07. 28.1 THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT AS PER THE SEIZED MATERIAL KA - 9 WHICH CONTAIN FIVE PURCHASE BILLS OF GOLD JEWELLERY ISSUED BY JOSCO JEWELLERS FOR RS.1,10,000/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM THAT THE BILL FROM JEWELLERY BELONGED TO HIS SISTER AND THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED BY THE AO AND ACCORDINGLY MADE THE ADDITION. THE ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A). 29 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE MONEY INVOLVED IN PURCHASE OF JEWELLS . THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM AND EVEN THE SOURCE HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED DURING THE COURS E OF SEARCH. ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF ITA NOS 317 TO 323/C/2011. 19 THE CIT(A), WHO HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO , THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2006 - 07 ON THIS ISSUE, IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 3 0 NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO ADDIT ION OF RS. 79,020/ - FOR THE AY 2007 - 08. 3 0.1 THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN A LOAN FROM SUNDARAM FINANCE FOR THE PURCHASE OF AN TATA PICKUP DURING THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2006. THE TOTAL PAYMENT OF INSTALLMENTS DURING ONE YEAR WAS RS . 79,020/ - AGAINST WHICH HE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY AMOUNT DURING THE AY 2007 - 08. ACCORDINGLY, THE DEFICIENCY OF OUT FLOW WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE AY 2007 - 08 BY THE AO. THE LD CIT(A), AFTER OBTAINING THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO, CONFIRMED THE ACT ION OF THE AO. 31 HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSAL OF THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT NO COGENT EXPLANATION OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS THE PAYMENT OF RS. 79,020. ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND NO INFIRMI TY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WHO HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2007 - 08 ON THIS ISSUE IS REJECTED. 32 THE LAST ISSUE FOR THE AY 2007 - 08 RELATES TO ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPEND ITURE AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,41,600/ - . ITA NOS 317 TO 323/C/2011. 20 33 THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD UNDERTAKEN A FEW JOURNEYS TO GULF COUNTRIES AS WELL AS CHINA, FOR WHICH NO SOURCE OR EXPLANATION IN SU PPORT OF ITS CLAIM HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION, WHICH ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A). 34 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE OBSERVED THAT THE AO WAS DULY IDENTIFIED THE FOREIGN TRAVEL BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF HIS PASSPORT. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT NO EXPENDITURE WITH REGARD TO THE JOURNEY WAS REFLECTED IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS BORNE BY MR MOHAMMED ALI WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY COGENT EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD EITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A), WHO HA S RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2007 - 08 ON THIS ISSUE, IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 35 OTHER GROUNDS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE; THEREFORE, DO NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION AND THE SAME ARE REJECTED. ITA NOS 317 TO 323/C/2011. 21 36 IN THE RE SULT, ALL THE APPEALS, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS. 317 TO 323/COCH/2011 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 12 TH DAY OF FEB 2016 . SD/ - SD/ - ( GEORGE GEORGE K ) ( B P JAIN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER COCHIN: DATED 12 TH FEB 2016 RAJ* COPY TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT, 5 . DR 6 . GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, COCHIN