The ITO, Ward-1., Anakapalle V. Smt Jagarapu Lalitha Kumari, Narsipatnam

ITA 395/VIZ/2006

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2835 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-12-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 20-09-2006
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G S S GOPINATH
• Keywords: Gift; Search and seizure; Source of fund; Reason to believe
• Section: 147; 131; 69; 148

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH: VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.129/VIZAG/2005 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 ITO, WARD-I, ANAKAPALLE VS. J. GANESH NARSIPATNAM (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) GIR NO.G-1048 I.T.A. NO.397/VIZAG/2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 ITO, WARD-1, ANAKAPALLE VS. J. APPA RAO, LALAMKODURU (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) GIR NO.A-1973 I.T.A. NO.395/VIZAG/2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 ITO, WARD-1, ANAKAPALLE VS. J. LALITHA KUMARI NARSIPATNAM (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) GIR NO.L-981 APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.S.S. GOPINATH, DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G.V.N. HARI, CA O R D E R PER S.K.YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE APPEALS FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A)-I, VISAKHAPATNAM AND THEY RELATE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 2001-02. SINCE THE ISSUES AGITATED IN THESE APPEAL S ARE COMMON IN NATURE, WE FIND IT CONVENIENT TO DISPOSE OF THESE APPEALS BY T HIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. BEFORE GOING INTO THE ISSUES, WE SHALL SET OUT THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF. SHRI J. GANESH IS AN EMPLOYEE OF FOREST DEPARTMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. THE ACB AUTHORITIES CARRIED OUT A SEARCH IN HIS HANDS O N 09-04-2002. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 ON 13.12.2001 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.72,120/-. BASED ON THE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM ACB AUTHORITIES, HIS CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED INVESTMENTS MADE IN THE NAME OF FOLLOWING FAM ILY MEMBERS, TO THE EXTENT UNEXPLAINED. SHRI J. APPARAO, FATHER - RS.10, 89,582/- SMT. J. LALITHA KUMARI, WIFE - RS.16,84 ,100/- 2.1 THE TOTAL VALUE OF ASSETS FOUND IN THE NAME OF SHRI J. APPA RAO WAS RS.16,35,082/-. SHRI APPA RAO EXPLAINED THAT HE IS THE OWNER OF 18 ACRES OF LAND AND FURTHER HE HAD TAKEN 52.27 ACRES ON LEASE FROM TWO DIFFERENT PERSONS. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE LEASE DEEDS AS THEY WERE NOT REGISTERED. THE AO ALSO DID NOT CONSIDER THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT THE SAME WERE FILED AFTER THE ACB SEARCH. FROM THE OWN LANDS ADMEASURING 18 ACRES, THE AO ESTIMATED AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.7 0,000/-P.A. AND THE ANNUAL SAVINGS AT RS.34000/- P.A. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO ESTI MATED THAT SHRI APPA RAO COULD HAVE SAVED RS.6,80,000/- IN 20 YEARS. OUT OF THE SAID SAVINGS, THE AO DEDUCTED A SUM OF RS.1,34,500/- TOWARDS INVESTMENT MADE PRIOR TO 1.4.2000. THUS THE AO ARRIVED AT THE PROBABLE CASH BALANCE AT RS.5,45,500/- AND GAVE SET OFF OF THE SAME AGAINST THE TOTAL VALUE OF ASSETS O F RS.16,35,082/-. THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.10,89,582/- WAS BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.2 THE TOTAL VALUE OF ASSETS FOUND IN THE NAME OF SMT. J. LALITHA KUMARI WAS RS.27,50,600/-. THE AO ACCEPTED THE SOURCES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.10,66,500/- AND ADDED THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.16,84,100/-. 3 2.3 THE ASSESSEE, SHRI J. GANESH HAD PURCHASED A FLAT DURING THE YEAR. ACCORDING TO AO, THE COST OF FLAT WAS RS.3.00 LAKHS AND THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED A LOAN OF RS.2.00 LAKHS FROM SBI. ACCORDI NGLY, THE AO ADDED THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.1.00 LAKH. THE AO ALSO NOTICED TH AT A SUM OF RS.88000/- WAS FOUND INVESTED IN DEBENTURES OF SOME COMPANIES IN T HE NAME OF TWO MINOR SONS OF SHRI J. GANESH. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT TH E SAID INVESTMENT WAS MADE OUT OF GIFT RECEIVED BY THEM FROM THEIR GRAND FATHE R. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE SAID EXPLANATION AND ACCORDINGLY ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER I N APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT(A) WHO ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- A. THE INCLUSION OF THE INCOMES OF THE FAMILY ME MBERS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DONE IN THE ABSENCE OF ADEQUATE SOURCES FOR THE FAMILY MEMBERS AS THE PURPORTED SOURCES ARE WITHOUT ANY SUPPORT, EVIDENCE AND MERELY ESTIMATED FIGURES THAT WOULD BE DERIVED FROM THE AGRL. LANDS. B. THE FACTS OF THE CASE RELIED ON BY THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS OF THE PRESE NT CASE AS IN THIS CASE WEIGHTAGE WAS GIVEN TO THE FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR THE FAMILY MEMBERS AND ONLY THE DEFICIT WAS CONSIDERED FOR INCLUSION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE BASED UPON THE REPORT OF ACB OFFICIALS. HOWEVER, THE ACB AUTH ORITIES, IN A SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDING DATED 10-10-2007 HAVE EXCLUDED THE EXPEN DITURE, INCOME AND ASSETS ACQUIRED BY THE FATHER, WIFE AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBE RS FROM THEIR OWN SOURCES OF INCOME AND RESPONSIBILITY, BY HOLDING THAT THE SAID ASSETS CANNOT BE EITHER ATTRIBUTED/TAGGED TO THE INCOME OF THE ACCUSED OFFI CER SHRI J. GANESH. LD AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON A SIMILAR SET OF FACTS, T HE BANGALORE ITAT IN THE CASE OF IBRAHIM VITTAL @ IBRAHIM VS. ITO REPORTED IN (2009) 22 DTR (BANG.) 105 HAS HELD THAT THE INVESTMENTS CANNOT BE HELD TO BE UNEX PLAINED ASSET IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. LD AR SUBMITTED THE REOPENING OF ASS ESSMENTS IN THE HANDS OF J.APPARAO AND J.LALITHA KUMARI IS BAD IN LAW AS THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED U/S 147 4 WITH REGARD TO THE REASON TO BELIEVE WAS NOT FULFIL LED IN BOTH THE CASES. ON MERITS, LD AR SUBMITTED THAT SMT. J. LALITHA KUMARI IS ASSESSED TO TAX EVEN PRIOR TO THE ACB RAIDS AND SHE WAS HAVING ENOUGH SOURCES FOR THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY HER. SMT. J. APPA RAO IS AN AGRICULTURALIST AND HAD ENOUGH AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE AO REJECTED THE CLAIM OF HOLDING LEASE HOLD LANDS EVEN AFTER MAKING DUE ENQUIRIES IN THIS REGARD THROUGH HIS INS PECTOR AND EVEN WITHOUT ANY CONTRADICTORY FINDING. THE INCOME ESTIMATED BY THE AO IS PURELY A GUESS WORK, WHERE AS SHRI APPA RAO HAD SUBMITTED INCOME CERTIFI CATES FROM THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY LD AR CONTENDED THAT T HE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. 5. ON THE OTHER HANDS, LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS MADE THE ASSESSMENT AFTER PROPERLY CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THE ADDITIONS MADE BY HIM SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERU SED THE RECORD. THE OBSERVATIONS OF LD CIT(A) ARE EXTRACTED BELOW:- THE BASIS POINT FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER INV ESTMENTS MADE IN THE NAMES OF APPELLANTS FATHER SRI J. APPA RAO AND THE APPELLANTS WIFE SMT. J. LALITHA KUMARI CAN BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. VERIFICATION OF THE RECORDS SHOW THAT A SWORN STATEMENT WAS RECORDED FR OM SRI J. APPA RAO U/S 131 OF THE ACT ON 29-03-2004 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE SAID STATEMENT SRI APPA RAO CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT ALL THE INVESTME NTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY HIM OUT OF HIS OWN SOURCES OF INCOME. . WHILE THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE FACT OF OWNERSHIP OF 18 ACRES OF LAND, DID NOT ACCE PT THE FACT RELATING TO LEASEHOLD LAND AS THE LEADS WERE NOT REGISTERED. THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE PRIMA FACIE APPEARS TO BE NOT CORRECT. AS PER THE RULES OF GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, LAND TAKEN ON LEASE FROM RYOTS NEEDS NO RE GISTRATION.THE ASSESSING OFFICER DEPUTED HIS INSPECTOR TO VERIFY THE CLAIM AND THE INSPECTOR, AFTER DUE ENQUIRY AND VERIFICATION, VIDE HIS REPORT DATED 22- 03-2004 CONFIRMED THE FACT RELATING TO LANDS HAVING BEEN TAKEN ON LEASE BY SRI APPA RAO. THUS THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT CORRECT IN NOT CONSIDERING THESE EVI DENCES. THESE EVIDENCES SHOW THAT SRI J APPA RAO WAS IN THE POSSESSION OF SUBSTA NTIAL LAND HOLDINGS. REGARDING THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED THE SAME AS PER HIS OWN CALCULATIONS WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ANY BODY. IT IS FAIRLY WELL SETTLED NOW THAT ADDITIONS CANNOT BE MADE ON THE BA SIS OF SUSPICION, SURMISES 5 AND CONJECTURES. IT HAS TO BE BASED UPON EVIDENCES AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO ESTIMATE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF J. APPA RAO. FURTHER IT IS SEEN THAT SRI APPA RAO FIL ED HIS RETURNS OF INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 1989-00 TO 2004-05 NO DOUBT, THES E RETURNS HAVE BEEN FILED AFTER THE ACB SEARCH IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT BUT T HIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THESE RETURNS ARE TO BE IGNORED ALL TOGETHER AS HAS BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER.. SIMILARLY A DETAILED SWORN STATEMENT WAS RECORDED FROM SMT. J. LALITHA KUMARI, WIFE OF THE APPELLANT U/S 131 OF THE ACT O N 29-03-2004 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE SWORN STATEMENT SMT. LALITHA KUMAR I CLEARLY ACCEPTED THE OWNERSHIP OF ALL THE INVESTMENTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO HE R AND ALSO EXPLAINED THE SOURCES OF SUCH INVESTMENTS. BESIDES SHE IS A REGU LAR INCOME TAX ASSESSEE WHO FILED HER RETURNS OF INCOME FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSMEN T YEARS AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE SOME RETURNS WERE FILED PRIOR TO ACB SEARCH IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT. BY NOT TAKING INTO COGNIZANCE THESE FAC TS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY HER AS UNEXPLAINED IN THE H ANDS OF APPELLANT, WHICH IS NOT CORRECT AS PER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE. ACCORDINGLY LD CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS MADE THE ADDITIONS WITHOUT PROPERLY VERIFYING THE SOURCES EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, HIS FATHER AND WIFE. IN THIS REGARD, LD CIT(A) HAS DRAWN SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V DAYACHAND JAIN REPORTED IN 98 ITR 280. LD CIT(A) ALSO DELETED THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE DEBENTURES IN THE NAME OF TWO MINOR SONS FOR THE REASON THAT THE GRAND FAT HER SHRI J. APPA RAO HAS CONFIRMED IN HIS SWORN STATEMENT THAT THEY WERE MAD E OUT OF THE GIFT GIVEN BY HIM. 6.1 THE OBSERVATIONS OF LD CIT(A) EXTRACTED ABO VE CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PROCEEDED TO MAKE THE ADDITIO NS BY MAKING OUTRIGHT REJECTION OF EXPLANATIONS OFFERED BY SHRI J. APPA R AO AND SMT. LALITHA KUMARI, PARTICULARLY WHEN NO MATERIAL WAS AVAILABLE TO CONT RADICT THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE ONLY O N THE BASIS OF SUSPICION, SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. THE AO HAS INITIATED SCR UTINY PROCEEDINGS ON THE BASIS OF THE REPORT FROM THE ACB OFFICIALS. AS AN INCOME TAX AUTHORITY, THE AO IS HAVING THE DOMAIN JURISDICTION UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT TO CORRECTLY ASSESS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS PECULIAR THAT THE AO WAS MAINLY GUIDED BY THE 6 REPORT OF ACB OFFICIALS. THIS FACT IS EVIDENT FROM THE REJECTION OF LEASE HOLD LAND HELD BY SHRI J. APPA RAO, EVEN AFTER MAKING DUE ENQ UIRIES THROUGH THE INSPECTOR AND EVEN WITHOUT FINDING ANY CONTRADICTORY MATERIA L. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME ESTIMATED BY THE AO WAS HIS OWN ESTIMATE WITHOUT AN Y BASIS. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE HERE THAT BY A SUBSEQUENT ORDER, THE ACB AUTHO RITIES HAVE EXCLUDED THE ASSETS BELONGING TO THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSES SEE AND HENCE THE VERY BASIS ON WHICH THE AO PLACED RELIANCE NO LONGER EXISTS. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISI ON OF LD CIT(A). 7. NOW LET US TAKE UP THE APPEALS RELATING TO SRI J.APPARAO AND SMT. J.LALITHA KUMARI. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED THE ASSESSM ENTS OF BOTH THE PERSONS FOR SIMILAR REASONS AND THEY ARE EXTRACTED BELOW FROM T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER. SRI JAGARAPU GANESH WAS SUBJECTED TO A SEARCH BY THE ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ON 9.4.2002. AS PER THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD SRI JAGARAPU GANESH WAS FOUND T O HAVE IN HIS POSSESSION SEVERAL MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES WHICH WERE ALLEGEDLY PURCHASED IN THE NAMES OF HIS FATHER SRI J. APPARAO AND HIS WIFE SMT . LALITHA. IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED IN THE CASE OF SRI J. GANESH FOR THE ASST . YEAR 2001-02, THE INVESTMENT STANDING IN THE NAME OF SMT. J. LALITHA (J.APPA RA O) AND RELEVANT TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 WERE ENQ UIRED AND EXAMINED AND THEN CONSIDERED FOR ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF SRI J. GANESH. SINCE THE FINDINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT OF SRI J. GANESH ARE RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF SMT. J. LALITHA (J.APPA RAO) AND SINCE THE INVESTME NTS MADE IN HER NAME WERE ASSESSED U/S 69 IN THE HANDS OF J. GANESH IN THAT A SSESSMENT, ADMITTEDLY THE SAME NEED TO BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF SMT.J. LAL ITHA (J. APPA RAO) CONSIDERING THAT THE SAME WERE UNEXPLAINED. THUS, THERE BEING A CASE OF INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX ESCAPING ASSESSMENT, PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 WERE INITIATED BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 ON . 7.1 ON A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF READING OF THE REAS ONS FOR REOPENING, ONE MAY FIND THAT THE REASONING GIVEN AND THE DECISION TAKEN TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 CONTRADICTS WITH EACH OTHER. THE AO STATES THA T SHRI J. GANESH HAS ALLEGEDLY PURCHASED PROPERTIES IN THE NAME OF FATHER AND WIFE ; THAT SUCH INVESTMENTS WERE ENQUIRED, EXAMINED AND THEN CONSIDERED FOR ASSESSME NT IN THE HANDS OF SRI J. GANESH. THUS, ACCORDING TO AO, HE HAS MADE NECESSA RY ENQUIRIES, EXAMINED THE ISSUES AND SATISFIED HIMSELF THAT THE INVESTMENTS I N THE IMPUGNED PROPERTIES HAVE 7 BEEN MADE BY SHRI J. GANESH AND ACCORDINGLY ASSESSE D THEM IN THE HANDS OF SHRI J. GANESH. HAVING REACHED SUCH A FIRM OPINION, THA T TOO AFTER MAKING NECESSARY ENQUIRIES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON AS TO HOW THE AO CAN CONSIDER THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENTS IN THE HANDS OF J. LAL ITHA KUMARI AND J. APPARAO WITH THE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCA PED IN THEIR HANDS. HENCE THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT OF J. LALITHA KUMAR I AND J. APPARAO ARE BAD IN LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 147 IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED IN BOTH THE CASES. 7.2 ON MERITS, SINCE THE LD CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE HANDS OF J. LALITHA KUMARI AND J. APPARAO, THE REVE NUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ASSAILING THE DECISION OF LD CIT(A). 7.3 WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE HA NDS OF SRI J. APPA RAO, LD CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE REJECTION OF LEASE HOLD LA NDS OF 52.27 ACRES OF LAND IS NOT CORRECT AND THE ESTIMATION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME I S ALSO NOT BASED ON ANY MATERIAL. LD CIT(A) HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT ANY NEW FACT OR EVIDENCE TO REBUT THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT OF HAVING EARNED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND OF HAVING INVESTED IN T HE MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES. AS STATED EARLIER, THE AO HAS REJECTED THE CLAIM OF LEASE HOLD LAND AFTER MAKING DUE ENQUIRIES. FURTHER THE AO HAS EST IMATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WITHOUT ANY BASIS. HENCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISION OF LD CIT(A). 7.4 IN THE HANDS OF J. LALITHA KUMARI, THE LD C IT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE ADDITIONS ON MERITS ALSO. OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITIO N OF RS.16.84 LAKHS, MAJOR INVESTMENT IS THE FIXED DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANKS TO THE TUNE OF RS.15.00 LAKHS. LD CIT(A) HAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS USED TH E MONEY TAKEN FROM HER FATHER IN LAW SHRI J. APPARAO FOR MAKING THE SAID I NVESTMENT AND THE SAME WAS REPAID IN THE ACCOUNTING YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2002-03. LD CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE AO HIMSELF HAS ACC EPTED THIS FACT WHILE 8 ACCEPTING THE RETURN OF INCOME OF J. LALITHA KUMARI RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. ACCORDINGLY LD CIT(A) DELETED THE SA ID ADDITION AND WE ALSO DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH HIS DECISION. WITH REGARD TO THE REMAINING ADDITIONS, THE LD CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITIONS AFTE R CONSIDERING THE LOAN OF RS.4.00 LAKHS TAKEN BY HER FROM BANK OF INDIA AND T HE INCOME RETURNED BY HER IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF AC B SEARCH. SINCE THE LD CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITIONS AFTER CONSIDERING THE FAC TS IN DETAIL, WE AFFIRM HIS ORDER. 8. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENU E ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 2.12.2009. SD/- SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VG/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM DATE : 2 ND DECEMBER, 2009. A COPY OF THIS ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 01 THE ITO, WARD-1, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, GANDHINAGAR, AN AKAPALLE 02 SRI J. GANESH, 100A, DASPALLA HILLS, NEAR CYBER CAF, VISAKHAPATNAM 03 SRI J. APPA RAO, PYLAVANIPALEM, LALAMKODURU, VIS AKHAPATNAM DIST. 04 SMT. J. LALITHA KUMARI, W/O JAGARAPU GANESH, 100 A, DASPALLA HILLS, NEAR PANDHI METTA JUNCTION, OPP. MUTYALAMMA TEMPLE, AUTO GLAYM BUILDING, 2 ND FLOOR, VISAKHAPATNAM 05 CIT (A)-I, VISAKHAPATNAM 06 CIT, VISAKHAPATNAM 07 DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPAATNAM 08 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH