V.Mohammed, Palakkad V. DCIT, Trichur

ITA 325/COCH/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7506 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 02-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHANTOM BOSS
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Depreciation; Principle of natural justice; Valuation report
• Section: 139

Judgement Text

ITA NOS 324 TO 330/C/2011. 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPEL L A TE T R IBUNAL COCHIN BENCH , COCHIN BEFORE S/SH RI B P JAIN , A M & G EORGE GEORGE.K , J M ITA NO S. 324 TO 330/COCH/2011 . (ASST YEAR S 2001 - 02 TO 2007 - 08 ) M R V MOHAMMED VELLOTH HOUSE PERUMUDIYOOR PATTAMBI PALAKKADF VS THE DYCOMMR OF IN COME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE THRISSUR ( APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AEWPM7908K ASSESSEE BY SH ANIL D NAIR REVENUE BY SHRI SHANTOM BOSS, CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING 2 ND FEB 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11 TH FEB 2016 OR D ER 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 T H E ISSUES INVOLVED ALL THE APPEALS , ARE ALMOST IDENTICAL , AND PERT AIN TO THE SAME ASSESSEE ; THEREFORE, THEY WERE HEARD TO GETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 3 FIRST, WE WILL TAKE UP THE APPEAL FOR THE AY 2001 - 02 FOR ADJUDICATION. ITA NOS 324 TO 330/C/2011. 2 ITA NOS. 324/COCH/2011(AY 2001 - 02) 4 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THIS APPEAL: 1 ) THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGAINST LAW , FACTS AND NATURAL JUSTICE . 2 ) THE ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG IN REJECTING THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE APPELLANT TO PROVE THAT OPENING FUNDS AMOUNTING RS.3,40,000/ - - IS AV AILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT AND WENT WRONG IN MAKING ADDITION OF THE AMOUNT . 3 ) THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DRAWN RS. 23,700/ - FROM THE FIRM WHICH FUNDS IS AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT AND WENT WRONG IN MAKING ADDITION O F THE AMOUNT . 4 ) ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG I N ESTIMATING THE PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF THE APPELLANT AT RS. 90,000/ - WITHOUT CONSIDER I NG THE YEA R, THE STYLE OF LIVING OF THE APPELLANT AND OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS AND MAKING ADDIT I ON TO THE INCOM E ON THAT BASIS . 5 ) THE ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG I N NOT ACCEPTING THE SOURCES ON ACCOUNT OF GIFT OF RS. 6,79,575/ - RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM HIS RELATIVES AND ADDING THE SAME AS THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT . 6 ) ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE EV I DENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT IN REGARD TO LOAN OF RS. 40,000/ - RECE I VED BY HIM 7 ) ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLAN T FOR ADDUCING FURTHER EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO THE LOANS AND G I FTS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLA NT AND WENT WRONG IN REJECTING THE SAME . 8 ) ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THAT SUFFICIENT SOURCE 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 T IME OF HEARING . 5 GROUND NOS 1 , 7 , 8 & 9 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND DO NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION AND THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. 6 AS REGARDS ROUND NO.2, THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED RS.1,65,601/ - AS OPENING B ALANCE IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT ; BUT NO REQUIRED INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED TO THE AO. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED AS NRI CHEQUE AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,75,000/ - ; BUT NO CONFIRMATION TO THAT ITA NOS 324 TO 330/C/2011. 3 EXTENT WAS PLACED ON RECORD. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO , AFTER GIVING ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 17,203/ - MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 3,40,000/ - TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRM ED BY THE LD CIT(A) . 7 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY EXPLANATION TO THE OPENING BALANCE AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,65,601/ - OR ANY CONFIRMATION TO THE NRI GIFT. ACCORDINGLY , WE FIND THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO . THE GROUND NO.2, IS ACCORDINGLY, REJECTED. 8 AS REGARDS THE GROUND NO.3, THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.23,700/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DRAWINGS FOR WHICH NO EXPLANATION HAS BEEN OFFERED AND THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN IN THE OUTFLOW IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE FIRM, WHICH ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) . 9 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVA L SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) ; SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED AND CORROBORATED THE IMPUGNED DRAWINGS BY THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT OF THE FIRM. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO.3 IS REJECTED. 10 GROUND NO. 4, RELATES TO ESTIMATION OF PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 90,000/ - . THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 90,000/ - CONSIDERING ITA NOS 324 TO 330/C/2011. 4 THE YEAR AND STYL E OF LIVING OF THE ASSESSEE ETC. THE LD CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. 11 WE HAVE HEARD THE RI VAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT HIS WIFE HASEENA WAS DOING MONEY LENDING BUSINESS; BUT AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, IT WAS STATED THAT NONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY WAS HAVING ANY INCOME OTHER THA N FRUIT BUSINESS AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE OF MONEY LENDING BUSINESS AND ALL THE DRAWINGS WERE MADE FROM PATTAMBI FRUITS AS FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE HER EARNING POTENTIAL. IN THE STATEMENT TAKEN DUR ING THE SEARCH, SHE HAD DEPOSED THAT SHE WAS ONLY HOUSEWIFE AND WAS NOT EARNING ANY INCOME OF HER OWN. SINCE NO BIFURCATION OF EXPENSES HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED, THE ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) . 12 HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION S AND P ERUSAL OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.4 IS REJECTED. 13 AS REGARDS GROUND NO.5, THE A O HAS REJECTED THE SOURCE ON ACCOUNT OF GIFT RECEIVED FROM RELATIVES AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) . ITA NOS 324 TO 330/C/2011. 5 14 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY CONFIRMATION LETTER AS RE GARDS TO THE GIFT AND NO CREDITWORTHINESS HAS BEEN PROVED, NO BALANCE SHEET ALONG WITH SCHEDULES AND P&L ACCOUNT OF THE BUSINESS OWNED BY ALLEGED CREDITORS/DONOR FIL ED OR PROOF OF TRANSFER OF EACH LOAN/GIFT THROUGH LEGAL CHANNELS AND PROOF OF DELIVERY OF G IFT/LOAN THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS FURNISHED. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE ABSENCE OF IDENTITY, CAPACITY, GENUINENESS BEING PROVED, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.5 I S REJECTED. 15 GROUND NO.6 RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 40,000/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN, WHICH ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) . 16 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FU RNISHED ANY CONFIRMATION LETTER AND ALSO NO SOURCE OR CREDITWORTHINESS HAS BEEN PROVED. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO. GROUND NO.6 IS ACCORDINGLY, REJECTED. 17 IN THE RESULT , THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.324/COCH/2011 IS DISMISSED. ITA NOS 324 TO 330/C/2011. 6 ITA NO. 325/COCH/2011 ( AY 2002 - 03 ) : 1 8 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THIS APPEAL: 1 . THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGAINST LAW , FACTS AND NATURAL JUSTICE . 2 . THE ASSESSING OFFICER O UGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 85,000/ - RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT IS FAR AND REASONABLE ON THE BASIS OF THE EXTENT OF AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY HIM FROM THE YEAR 2001 ONWARDS AND WENT WRONG IN REJECTING THE SAME AS A SOURCE. 3 THE ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG IN ESTIMATING THE PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF THE APPELLANT AT RS. 1,10,000/ - WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE YEAR, THE STYLE OF LIVING OF THE APPELLANT AND OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS AND MAKING ADDITION TO THE INCOME OF THAT BASIS . 4 ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG IN ASSUMING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD INCURRED A SUM OF RS . 2,70,000/ - TOWARDS IMPROVEMENT TO HIS HOUSE BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS, PRESUMPTIONS AND SURMISES. AO OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THE INCOME TAX INSPECTOR IS NOT AN EXPER T AND IS HENCE NOT COMPETENT TO JUDGE NEITHER THE YEAR OF IMPROVEMENT NOR THE AMOUNT SPENT ON IMPROVEMENT MERELY BY PERSONAL INSPECTION AND NOT BASED ON ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE. THE AO WENT WRONG IN MAKING THE ADDITION BASED ON THE REPORT OF INSPECTOR. 5 ASS ESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT INVESTMENT IN TAQLEE HOSPITAL AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,000 HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT AND WENT WRONG IN REJECTING THE SAME 6 ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THAT SUFFICIENT SOURCE AVAILABLE IN THE FIRM F OR MEETING THE DEFICIENCY IF ANY IN INVESTMENTS AND EXPENSES OF THE APPELLANT . 7 SUCH OTHER GROUNDS OR MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING . 19 GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME, WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 85,000/ - , WH ICH ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) . 2 0 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD . THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED U/S 139 ON1.8.2002 DO NOT SHOW AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND ITA NOS 324 TO 330/C/2011. 7 THE SAME HAS BEEN INTRODUCED IN POST SEARCH RETUR NS TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE FOR INVESTMENT DETECTED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. THE COST OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS ONLY RS. 2.96 LACS BUT THE INCOME CLAIMED FOR THE YEARS COMES TO RS.7.85 LACS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE FOR EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED THE EARNING OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURN FILED. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO.2 IS REJECTED. 2 1 GROUND NO 3 RELATES TO ESTIMATION OF PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,10,000/ - WHICH WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) . 2 2 WE HAVE HEARD T HE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. SINCE THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL AS IN THE PRECEDING YEAR , WHICH HAS BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY US HEREIN ABOVE AND ACCORDINGLY, OUR ORDER HEREINABOVE ON THE ISSUE IS IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON. THEREFORE , WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) , WHO HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO ON THIS ISSUE. G ROUND NO.3 , IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. ITA NOS 324 TO 330/C/2011. 8 2 3 GROUND NO . 4 RELATES TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ASSUMPTION OF COST OF IMPROV EMENT OF HOUSE AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,70,000/ - , WHICH ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) . 2 4 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE INCOME TAX INSPECTOR VISITED THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AND REPORTED THAT AS PER THE PREVALENT RATES OF THAT YEAR THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE TO BE VALUED AT NOT LESS THAN RS. 2 LACS. AS THE COST OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS DOES NOT FIND PLACE IN CASH FLOW STATEMENTS, ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION WAS RIGHTLY MADE. THE ASSESSEE WAS OPERATING A HOUSING LOAN ACCOUNT WITH STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE AND WAS CREDITING RS. 15,000/ - PER MONTH WHICH WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT OR IN THE CURRENT ACCOUNT IN THE FIRM. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FURNISHED THE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR HOUSING LOAN ALONG WIT H ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) , WHO HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO. THE GROUND NO.4 IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 2 5 GROUND NO. 5 RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 10,000/ - ON ACC OUNT OF INVESTMENT IN TAQLE HOSPITAL. SINCE THE INVESTMENT WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,000/ - AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) . ITA NOS 324 TO 330/C/2011. 9 26 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY COGENT REASONS AND HAS NOT REFLECTED THE SAME IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) , WHO HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE A CTION OF THE AO. GROUND NO.5, IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 27 OTHER GROUNDS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE; THEREFORE, NO ADJUDICATION IS REQUIRED AND THE SAME ARE REJECTED. 28 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.325/COCH/2011 IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.326/COCH/2011 (A Y 2003 - 04) 29 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THIS APPEAL: 1 THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGAINST LAW, FACTS AND NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 1,20 , 000/ - RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT IS FAIR AND REASONABLE ON THE BASIS OF THE EXTENT OF AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY HIM FROM THE YEAR 2001 ONWARDS AND WENT WRONG IN REJECTING THE SAME AS A SOURCE . 3 THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS WENT WRONG IN IGNORING THE AFFIDAVIT PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT FROM MR . ABOOBAKER TO CONFIRM THAT HE HAS PAID AN ADVANCE OF RS. 2,50,0001 - FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY FROM THE APPELLANT . ON THE BASIS OF THE AFFIDAVIT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT NOT HA VE REJECTED THE SOURCE OF RS. 2,50.000/ - . 4 ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG IN REJECTING THE SOURCE OF 1/3 RD OF SUM RS. 6 , 83 , 400/ - TOWARDS SALE OF PROPERTY AS ADVANCE RECEIVED AS PER AGREEMENT DATED 5/4/2002. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT NOT HAVE REJECTED THE SOURCE FROM SUCH ADVANCE. 5 ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG IN REJECTING THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM WIFE MRS.HAZEENA AMOUNTING TO RS,2 , 40,000/ - BASED ON THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED. 6 ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG INR EJECTING THE SOURCE FROM ADVANCE RECEIVED A S ITA NOS 324 TO 330/C/2011. 10 PER AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF PROPERTY AMOUNTING TO RS.4,35,000/ - AND RS. 1 , 12 , 000/ - WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED THROUGH AN AFFIDAVIT FURNISHED BY THE BUYER . 7 ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG IN ESTIMATING THE PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF THE APPELLANT A T RS.1 ,10,000/ - WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE YEAR, THE STYLE OF LIVING OF THE APPELLANT AND OTHER RELEVANT FACT ORS AND MAKING ADDITION TO THE INCOME ON THAT BASIS. 8 ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT FOR ADDUCING FUR THER EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO THE LOANS AND GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AND WENT WRONG IN REJECTING THE SAME. 9 ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THAT SUFFICIENT SOURCES AVAILABLE IN THE FIRM FOR MEETING THE DEFICIENCY IF ANY IN INVESTMENTS AN D EXPENSES OF THE APPELLANT . 10 SUCH OTHER GROUNDS OR MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 30 GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,20,000/ - . THE AO REJECTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,20 ,000/ - AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME O THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) . 31 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL AS IN THE PRECEDING YEAR HEREIN ABOVE AND ACCORDINGL Y ; OUR ORDER HEREINABOVE ON THE ISSUE IS IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) , WHO HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO ON THIS ISSUE. G ROUND NO.2 , IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 32 GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 2,50,000/ - . THE AO MADE THE ADDITION WITH REGARD TO THE ADVANCE PAID FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,50,000/ - BY MR ABOOBECKER/ABBU. IN SPITE OF REQUISITION, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EXPLANATION REGAR DING THE NATURE, PURPOSE, SOURCE AND ITA NOS 324 TO 330/C/2011. 11 CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER WITH SUITABLE CONFIRMATION LETTER AND ACCORDINGLY, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION, WHICH ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) . 33 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PLACE ON RECORD ANY OF THE REQUISITE DOCUMENTS AS WELL AS EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION, CREDITWORTHINESS AND SOURCE OF MONEY ADVANCED. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH TH E FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) , WHO HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. GROUND NO.3 IS ACCORDINGLY, REJECTED. 34 GROUND NO.4 RELATES TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF PROPERTY AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,83,400/ - . THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,83,400/ - RECEIVED TOWARDS SALE O F PROPERTY AS ADVANCE AND ADDED THE SAME TO TH E TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONFIRMATION OR PROVING THE NATURE, PURPOSE, SOURCE AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER, WHICH ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) . 35 WE HAVE HEAR D THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) , AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO GIVE SPECIFIC DETAILS OF TRANSACTION AND ALSO FAILED TO PLACE ON RECORD ANY OF THE REQUISITE DOCUMENTS A S WELL AS EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE SOURCE AND ITA NOS 324 TO 330/C/2011. 12 GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION AND MONEY ADVANCED . GROUND NO.4 IS ACCORDINGLY, REJECTED. 36 GROUND NO.5 RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 2,40,000/ - . THE AO MADE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE AMOUNT RECEI VED FROM WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE , FOR WHICH NO EXPLANATION WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION, WHICH ACTION O F THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) . 37 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE SOURCE , CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION; WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) , WHO HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO ON THIS ISSUE. GROUND NO.5 I S ACCORDINGLY, REJECTED. 38 GROUND NO.6 RELATES TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE RECEIVED ON SALE OF PROPERTY. THE AO ADDED RS. 4,35,000/ - AND RS. 1,12,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF PROPERTY AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY PROOF NAME AND ADDRESS O F THE PERSON WHO HAD ADVANCED THE MONEY. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT PRODUCED ANY AFFIDAVIT OR THE AGREEMENT. THE ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) . ITA NOS 324 TO 330/C/2011. 13 39 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY SPECIFIC DETAILS OF THE TRANSACTION OR ANY REQUISITE DOCUMENT AS WELL AS EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION; WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) , WHO HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. GROUND NO. 6 IS ACCORDINGLY, REJECTED. 40 GROUND NO.7 RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 1,10,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATION OF PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. THE AO MADE THE ADDITION IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS AND PROOF OF SOURCE OF EXPENSES . THE LD CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. 41 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. T HE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL AS IN THE PRECEDING YEAR HEREIN ABOVE AND ACCORDINGLY; OUR ORDER HEREINABOVE ON THE IS SUE IS IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE IN THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) , WHO HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO ON THIS ISSUE. G ROUND NO. 7 , IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 42 OTHER GROUNDS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE; THEREFORE, NO ADJ UDICATION IS REQUIRED AND THE SAME ARE REJECTED. 43 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.326/COCH/2011 IS DISMISSED. ITA NOS 324 TO 330/C/2011. 14 ITA NO. 327/COCH/2011 (2004 - 05) 44 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THIS APPEAL: 1 THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AG AINST LAW, FACTS AND NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 1,20 , 000/ - RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT IS FAIR AND REASONABLE ON THE BASIS OF THE EXTENT OF AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY ACQUI RED BY HIM FROM THE YEAR 2001 ONWARDS AND WENT WRONG IN REJECTING THE SAME AS A SOURCE . 3 THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE EVIDENCED PRODUCED IN REGARD TO THE LOAN OF RS. 1,40,000/ - RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM MR ABDUL REHIMAN . 4 ASSE SSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT APPELLANT HAD SOLD JEWELLERY WORTH RS. 1,00,000/ - DURING THE YEAR AND WENT WRONG IN REJECTING THE SOURCE. 5 ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THAT ENTRIES OF INVESTMENTS OF RS. 2,00,000/ - IN SHARES OF SEVA NA HOSPITAL HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE ACCOUNT OF PATTAMBI FRUIT COMPANY OF WHICH THE APPELLANT IS A PARTNER . 6 ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REGARD TO LOAN OF RS. 1,00,000/ - RECEIVED FROM MTR ABDUL LATHEEF AND WENT WRONG I N R EJECTING THE SAME AND MAKING CONSEQUENT ADDITION OF INCOME. . 7 ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG IN ESTIMATING THE PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF THE APPELLANT AT RS.1 , 3 0,000/ - WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE YEAR, THE STYLE OF LIVING OF THE APPELLANT AND OT HER RELEVANT FACT ORS AND MAKING ADDITION TO THE INCOME ON THAT BASIS. 8 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 I N REJECTING THE SAME. 9 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 . 10 SUCH OTHER GROUNDS OR MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARIN G. 45 GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,20,000/ - . THE AO REJECTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,20,000/ - AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME O THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) . ITA NOS 324 TO 330/C/2011. 15 46 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL AS IN THE PRECEDING YEAR HEREIN ABOVE AND ACCORDINGLY; OUR ORDER HEREINABOVE ON THE ISSUE IS IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) , WHO HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO ON THIS ISSUE. G ROUND NO.2 , IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 47 GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 1,40,000/ - . THE AO ADDED RS. 1,4 0,000/ - BEING THE LOAN RECEIVED FROM MR ABDUYL REHIMAN AS THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN IN THE ASSET AND LIABILITY STATEMENT FOR THE IMPUGNED YEAR, WHICH ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) . 48 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PLACE ON RECORD ANY OF THE REQUISITE DOCUMENTS AS WELL AS EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND MONEY ADVANCED; WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) , WH O HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. GROUND NO.3 IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 49 GROUND NO. 4 RELATES TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF JEWELLERY. THE AO ADDED RS. 1,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF MONEY RECEIVED ON SALE OF JEWELLERY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE SALE, WHICH ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) . ITA NOS 324 TO 330/C/2011. 16 50 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE SOURCE OF SAID JEWELLERY ACQ UISITION; WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) , WHO HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. GROUND NO.4 IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 51 GROUND NO. 5 RELATES TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF SEVANA HOSPITAL. THE AO TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2 LACS AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF SEVANA HOSPITAL FOR THE REASONS THAT NO ENTRY WAS FOUND IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND ACCORDINGLY, MADE THE ADDITION, WHICH ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) . 52 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EXPLANATION, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO. GROUND NO.5 IS ACCORDING LY, REJECTED. 5 3 GROUND NO.6 RELATE TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN TAKEN FROM ABDUL LATHEEF. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY PROOF, NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PERSON WHO HAD ADVANCED THE MONEY AND ALSO DID NOT PROVE ANY SOURCE AND GENUINENESS OF T HE TRANSACTION , THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,00,000/ - , WHICH ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) . ITA NOS 324 TO 330/C/2011. 17 5 4 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PLACE ON RECORD ANY OF THE REQUISITE DOCUMENT AS WELL AS EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE GENUINEN ESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND THE MONEY ADVANCED, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) , WHO HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. GROUND NO.6 IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 55 GROUND NO.7 RELATES TO ESTIMATION OF PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOL D EXPENSES. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION, THE AO MADE THE ESTIMATION OF PERSONAL HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,30,000/ - TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) . 5 6 WE HAVE HEARD T HE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL AS IN THE PRECEDING YEAR HEREIN ABOVE AND ACCORDINGLY; OUR ORDER HEREINABOVE ON THE ISSUE IS IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WI TH THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) , WHO HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO ON THIS ISSUE. THE GROUND NO.7 IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 5 7 OTHER GROUNDS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE; THEREFORE, NO ADJUDICATION IS REQUIRED AND THE SAME ARE REJECTED. 5 8 IN THE RESULT, THE A PPEAL IN ITA NO.327/COCH/2011 IS DISMISSED. ITA NOS 324 TO 330/C/2011. 18 ITA NO. 328/COCH/2011(AY 2005 - 06) 5 9 THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS WERE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL: 1 THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGAINST LAW, FACTS AND NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 1, 5 0 , 000/ - RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT IS FAIR AND REASONABLE ON THE BASIS OF THE EXTENT OF AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY HIM FROM THE YEAR 2001 ONWARDS AND WENT WRONG IN REJEC TING THE SAME AS A SOURCE . 3 THE ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG IN ADOPTING THE VALUATION REPORT IN RESPECT OF SAFFRON HOTEL IN TOTO WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE LIMITATIONS POINTED OUT BY THE APPELLANT AND MAKING AN ADDITION ON SUCH BASIS FOR THE EFFICIENCY IN INVESTMENT OF A SUM OF RS. 9,26,828/ - AS FOUND BY THE LD CIT(A) . 4 ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG IN ESTIMATING THE PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF THE APPELLANT AT RS.1 , 3 0,000/ - WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE YEAR, THE STYLE OF LIVING OF THE APPELLANT AND OTH ER RELEVANT FACT ORS AND MAKING ADDITION TO THE INCOME ON THAT BASIS. 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 OR MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 60 GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 1,50,000/ - ON AC COUNT OF AGRICULTURA L INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY T HE LD CIT(A). 61 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL AS IN THE PREC EDING YEAR HEREIN ABOVE AND ACCORDINGLY; OUR ORDER HEREINABOVE ON THE ISSUE I S IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE IN THE YEAR UNDER ITA NOS 324 TO 330/C/2011. 19 CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) , WHO HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO ON THIS ISSUE. T HE GROUND NO.2 IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 6 2 GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 9,26,828/ - . THE AO MADE THE ADDITION BASED ON THE VALUATION REPORT. THE LD CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BEING SUITABLE ADDITION ACCORDING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE. 6 3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUATION WAS ONLY RS. 12,89,500/ - AND ACCORDINGLY, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED SUSTAINABLE ADDITION OF RS. 9,26,828/ - . WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) , WHO HAD ALLOWED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS QUITE REASONABLE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS OF THE CASE . GROUND NO.3 IS, ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 64 GROUND NO.4 RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 1,30,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATION OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. 6 5 WE HAVE HEA RD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL AS IN THE PRECEDING YEAR HEREIN ABOVE AND ACCORDINGLY; OUR ORDER HEREINABOVE ON THE ISSUE IS IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFER E WITH THE ORDER ITA NOS 324 TO 330/C/2011. 20 OF THE LD CIT(A) , WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO.4 IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS REJECTED. 66 OTHER GROUNDS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE; THEREFORE, NO ADJUDICATION IS REQUIRED AND THE SAME ARE REJECTE D. 6 7 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.328/COCH/2011 IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 32 9 /COCH/2011(AY 200 6 - 07 ) 6 8 THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS WERE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL: 1 THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGAINST LAW, FACTS AND NATURAL JUSTICE . 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 1, 5 0 , 000/ - RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT IS FAIR AND REASONABLE ON THE BASIS OF THE EXTENT OF AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY HIM FROM THE YEAR 2001 ONWARD S AND WENT WRONG IN REJECTING THE SAME AS A SOURCE . 3 ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG IN IGNORING THE REVISED CASH FLOW SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHERE I N THE I NVESTMENT IN MELEPATTABI TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1 , 69 , 814/ - HAS ALSO BEEN SEPARATELY INCLUDED. THUS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG IN ADDING THE SAID AMOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT . 4 ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED DEPRECIATION ON ZEN CAR OWNED BY THE APPELLANT AND USED BY HIM FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIS BUSINESS . 5 ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE SOURCE OF RS. 80 , 000/ - BEING AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM WIFE MRS . HAZEENA . 6 ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT NOT HAVE REJECTED THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPE LLANT IN REGARD TO GIFT OF RS. 7 , 95,575/ - RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR. 7 ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG IN ADOPTING THE VALUATION REPORT IN RESPECT OF SAFFRON HOTEL IN TOTO WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE LIMITATIONS POINTED OUT BY THE APPELLANT AND MAK ING AN ADDITION ON SUCH BASIS FOR THE DEFICIENCY IN INVESTMENT OF A SUM OF RS. 9 , 26 , 828/ - AS FOUND BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL . 8 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 AND MAKING ADDITION TO THE INCOME ON THAT BASIS. 9 ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLA NT FOR ADDUCING FURTHER EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO THE LOANS AND GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AND WENT WRONG IN REJECTING THE SAME. 10 ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THAT SUFFICIENT SOURCES AVAILABLE IN ITA NOS 324 TO 330/C/2011. 21 THE FIRM FOR MEETI NG THE DEFICIENCY IF ANY IN INVESTMENTS AND EXPENSES OF THE APPELLANT . 11 SUCH OTHER GROUNDS OR MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING . 6 9 GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 1,50,000/ - ON AC COUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOM E DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE , WHICH ACTION OF THE AO HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT( A). 70 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL AS IN THE PRECEDING YEAR HEREIN ABOVE AND ACCORDINGLY; OUR ORDER HEREINABOVE ON THE ISSUE IS IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE W ITH THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) , WHO HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO ON THIS ISSUE. T HE GROUND NO.2 IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 7 1 GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. THE AO MADE THIS ADDITION OF RS. 1,69,814/, IN THE ABSEN CE OF ANY EVIDENCE, WHICH ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) . 72 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED ANY EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT, WE DO NOT FIND A NY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) , WHO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. GROUND NO.3, IS ACCORDINGLY, REJECTED. ITA NOS 324 TO 330/C/2011. 22 7 3 GROUND NO.4 RELATES TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON ZEN CAR. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,68,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON ZEN CAR , WHICH ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) . 7 4 HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSAL OF THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) . GROUND NO.4 IS ACCORDINGLY, REJECTED. 7 5 GROUND NO.5 RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 80,000/ - . SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 80,000/ - HAS TREATED AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE, WHICH ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT( A) . 76 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) , WHO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. GROUND NO.5 IS ACCORDINGLY, REJECTED. ITA NOS 324 TO 330/C/2011. 23 77 GROUND NO.6 RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 79,575/ - ON ACCOUNT OF GIFTS. THE AO MADE THIS ADDITION IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM THE CREDITOR/DONOR. THE LD CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. 78 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE TRANSACTION, IDENTITY, CAPACITY OF THE PERSON, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE F INDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) , WHO HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. GROUND NO.6 IS ACCORDINGLY, REJECTED. 7 9 OTHER GROUNDS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE; THEREFORE, NO ADJUDICATION IS REQUIRED AND THE SAME ARE REJECTED. 80 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.32 9 /COCH/2 011 IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 3 30 /COCH/2011(AY 200 7 - 08 ) 8 1 THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS WERE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL: 1 THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGAINST LAW, FACTS AND NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT T HE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 1, 6 0 , 000/ - RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT IS FAIR AND REASONABLE ON THE BASIS OF THE EXTENT OF AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY HIM FROM THE YEAR 2001 ONWARDS AND WENT WRONG IN REJECTING THE SAME AS A SOURCE . 3 THE LD LD CIT(A) WENT WRONG IN PROPOSING A FRESH ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/ - IN MELEPATTAMBI LAND WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. 4 THE AO WENT WRONG IN REJECTING THE EXPLANATION FOR THE SOURCE FOR MEETING THE FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES. . 5 ASSESSIN G OFFICER WENT WRONG IN ESTIMATING THE PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF THE APPELLANT AT RS. 90, 000/ - WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE YEAR, THE STYLE OF LIVING OF THE APPELLANT AND OTHER RELEVANT FACT ORS AND MAKING ADDITION TO THE ITA NOS 324 TO 330/C/2011. 24 INCOME ON THAT BASIS. 6 ASSESS ING 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 . 7 SUCH OTHER GROUNDS OR MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 82 GROUND N O .2 RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 1,60,000/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE , WHICH ACTION WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A). 83 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL AS IN THE PRECEDING YEAR HEREIN ABOVE AND ACCORDINGLY; OUR ORDER HEREINABOVE ON THE ISSUE IS IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) , WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO.2 IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS REJECTED. 8 4 GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 5 LACS . IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION THE AO MADE THIS ADDITION, WHICH ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) . 85 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED AN Y EXPLANATION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) , WHO HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. GROUND NO.3 IS ACCORDINGLY, REJECTED. ITA NOS 324 TO 330/C/2011. 25 8 6 GROUND NO.4 RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 53,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN TRAVEL AND ACCORDINGLY, THE AO MADE THIS ADDITION, WHICH ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) . 87 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES AND THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) , WHO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. GROUND NO. 4 IS ACCORDINGLY, REJECTED. 88 GROUND NO.5 RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 1,50,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES FOR WHICH NO EXPLANATION WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION WAS MADE AND THE LD CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. 89 WE HAVE HEARD TH E RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL AS IN THE PRECEDING YEAR HEREIN ABOVE AND ACCORDINGLY; OUR ORDER HEREINABOVE ON THE ISSUE IS IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WIT H THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) , WHO HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO.5 IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS REJECTED. ITA NOS 324 TO 330/C/2011. 26 9 0 OTHER GROUNDS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE; THEREFORE, NO ADJUDICATION IS REQUIRED AND THE SAME ARE REJECTED. 9 1 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.330/COCH/2011 IS DISMISSED. 9 2 TO SUM - UP, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 11 TH DAY OF FEB 2016 . SD/ - SD/ - ( GEORGE GEORGE K ) ( B P JAIN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER COCHIN: DATED 11 TH FEB 2016 RAJ* COPY TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . LD LD CIT(A) 4 . CIT , 5 . DR 6 . GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, COCHIN