Sri Dharipalli Sampath, Warangal V. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam

ITA 407/VIZ/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4732 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 14-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEBAKUMAR SONOWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M V ANIL KUMAR
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Search and seizure; Document seized; Peak credit; Onus to prove; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 147; 148; 132; 144; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I . T .A.NO. 407 TO 413 /V IZ / 201 7 ( A . Y S . : 20 06 - 07 TO 20 12 - 13 ) SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH D.NO.11 - 23 - 2053, TEACHERS COLONY L.B.NAGAR , WARANGAL . [PAN : AFLPD7478 R] VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 VISAKHAPATNAM ( APPELLANT) ( RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SRI M.V.ANIL KUMAR, AR REVENUE BY : SRI DEBA KUMAR SONOWAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 2 3 . 10 . 2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 . 10 .2018 O R D E R PER BENCH : THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 3 , VISAKHAPATNAM , ALL DATED 10.03.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13. SINCE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE SE APPEALS ARE COMMON, HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2 . THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING COMMON GROUNDS FOR THE A.Y.2006 - 07 , WHICH ARE INVOLVED FOR THE REMAINING ASSESSMENT YEARS ALSO . 1. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,54,700/ - MADE IN ASSESSMENT. 2. THE CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS 2 I.T.A. NO S.407 - 429/VIZ /201 7 (SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH) OF THE CASE ADDING RS. 8,54,700/ - BEING CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK ON MERE SUSPICION AND PRESUMPTION THAT IT BELONGS YOUR APPELLANT IGNORING THE DEPOSITION OF SMT. U RAJYALAKSHMI. 3. THE CIT(A) HAVING CALLED FOR THE RECORDS AND ASSESSMENT ORDERS OF SMT. U.RAJYALAKSHMI OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO VERIFY THE SAME AND EXPLAIN THE FACTS, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THEADDITION. 4. YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE ADDITION IS NOT BASED ON ANY SEIZED MATERIAL BUT ON THE BASIS OF CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT, THE ADDITION , IS BAD IN LAW AND MAY BE DELETED. 5. YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT CIT(A) AND ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED I N LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE IN DISALLOWING RS. 24,000/ - , BEING DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VIA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. FOR THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING YOUR APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE MEMBERS MAY PASS SUCH ORDERS DEEMED FIT. 3 . GROUND NOS. 1& 2 IN THE APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 2006 - 07, ARE CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT , TREATED AS INCOME . THE SAME ISSUE IS INVOLVED FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL FROM 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) IS RELAT ED TO CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. A SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS ACT) WAS CARRIED OUT IN THIS CASE ON 13.07.2011 AND CERTAIN INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND AND SEIZED . CONSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS , T HE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT , A ND THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS, THE AO ISSUED NOTICES U/S 143(2) & 142(1) ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE CALLING FOR THE 3 I.T.A. NO S.407 - 429/VIZ /201 7 (SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH) DETAILS . BUT THE NOTICES COULD NOT BE SERVED BY POST , T HERE FORE, SAME WERE SERVED THROUGH INSPECTOR ALONG WITH THE QUESTIONNAIRE . I N RESPONSE TO TH E NOTICE, ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER REQUESTING TO SUPPLY PHOTO COPIES OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS ON 11/03/2014 , WHICH WERE SUPPLIED BY THE AO ON 13/03/2014 . SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) IN SPITE OF GIVING SEV ERAL OPPORTUNITIES, THE AO ISSUED A FINAL SHOW - CAUSE NOTICE ON 19.03.2014 GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE ISSUES RAISED THROUGH THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND PROPOSING THE ADDITIONS . IN RESPONSE TO THE FINAL SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REPLY WITHOUT FURNISHING THE EVIDENCE S . THEREFORE, THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 R.W.S. 153A TO THE BEST JUDGMENT AS PER THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 4 . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSITS IN VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 , THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE FOLLOWS : NAME OF THE A/C HOLDER (SRI/SMT.) NAME OF THE BANK ACCOUNT NO. DEPOSITS (IN RS.) FINANCIAL YEAR 2005 - 06 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2006 - 07 D. SAMPATH ANDHRA BANK, SANATH NAGAR, HYDERABAD 05261001104612 7,59,700 D. SAMPATH DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK, WARANGAL 01510100066468 95,000 TOTAL 8,54,700 4 I.T.A. NO S.407 - 429/VIZ /201 7 (SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH) FINANCIAL YEAR 2006 - 07 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2007 - 08 D. SAMPATH ICICI BANK, DWARAKANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 006001527017 27,000 D. SAMPATH DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK, S.R. NAGAR, HYDERABAD 07211300012926 26,12,550 D. SAMPATH DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK, WARANGAL 01510100066468 4,74,700 TOTAL 31,14,250 FINANCIAL YEAR 2007 - 08 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2008 - 09 D. SAMPATH DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK, S.R. NAGAR, HYDERABAD 07211300012926 1,44,500 D. SAMPATH ORIENTAL BANKOF COMMERCE, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD 10812010003930 46,000 D. SAMPATH ICICI BANK, DWARAKANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 006001527017 59,900 D. SAMPATH AXIS BANK, NARASARAOPET 369010100141499 14,54,900 D. SAMPATH HDFC BANK, DWARAKANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 00501000158277 1,35,000 D. SAMPATH DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK, WARANGAL 01510100066468 82,500 TOTAL 19,22,800 FINANCIAL YEAR 2008 - 09 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2009 - 10 D. SAMPATH AXIS BANK, NARASARAOPET 369010100141499 33,26,000 D. SAMPATH HDFC BANK, DWARAKANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 00501000158277 1,50,000 D. SAMPATH ICICI BANK, DWARAKANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 006001527017 10,000 D. SAMPATH AXIS BANK, RAMNAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 369010100219211 60,000 D. SAMPATH ANDHRA BANK, SANATH NAGAR, HYDERABAD 05261001104612 2,980 D. SAMPATH DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK, WARANGAL 01510100066468 16,500 TOTAL 35,65,480 FINANCIAL YEAR 2009 - 10 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2010 - 11 D. SAMPATH DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK, S.R. NAGAR, HYDERABAD 07211300012926 45,000 D. SAMPATH ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD 10812010003930 83,500 5 I.T.A. NO S.407 - 429/VIZ /201 7 (SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH) D. SAMPATH AXIS BANK, RAMNAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 369010100219211 2,47,000 D. SAMPATH ICICI BANK, DWARAKANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 006001527017 38,000 D. SAMPATH AXIS BANK, NARASARAOPET 193010100133074 5,27,000 D. SAMPATH HDFC BANK, DWARAKANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 00501000158277 46,000 TOTAL 9,86,500 FINANCIAL YEAR 2010 - 11 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2011 - 12 D. SAMPATH DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK, S.R. NAGAR, HYDERABAD 07211300012926 73,000 D. SAMPATH ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD 10812010003930 27,000 D. SAMPATH ANDHRA BANK, SANATH NAGAR, HYDERABAD 05261001104612 49,000 D. SAMPATH AXIS BANK, NARASARAOPET 193010100133074 3,98,000 D. SAMPATH AXIS BANK, NARASARAOPET 369010100141499 5,96,000 D. SAMPATH HDFC BANK, DWARAKANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 00501000158277 62,000 D. SAMPATH YES BANK, VISAKHAPATNAM 004683800002039 9,40,000 TOTAL 26,76,000 FINANCIAL YEAR 2011 - 12 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2012 - 13 D. SAMPATH AXIS BANK, NARASARAOPET 193010100133074 50,000 D. SAMPATH HDFC BANK, DWARAKANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 00501000158277 28,000 TOTAL 78,000 TOTAL DEPOSITS FOR THE F.YS. 2005 - 06 TO 2011 - 12 RELEVANT TO A.YS. 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 1,31,97,730 THE AO CALLED FOR EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSITS THROUGH THE NOTICES , REMINDER S AND LETTERS , BUT NO COMPLIANCE WA S MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE , THE AO ISSUED THE FINAL SHOW CAUSE NOTICE , FOR WHICH , ASSESSEE SUBMITTED HIS REPLY VIDE LETTER DATED 6 I.T.A. NO S.407 - 429/VIZ /201 7 (SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH) 27.03.2014 AND STATED THAT CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN VARIOUS BANK ACCOUN TS OF THE ASSESSEE PERTAIN TO SMT. UPPU RAJYA LAKSHMI , F O R WHOM HE MADE THE TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASES AND SALE OF LANDS. HE ALSO STATED THAT TH IS FACT WAS STATED BY HIM IN HIS DEPOSITION RECORDED ON 09.08.2011 BEFORE THE I.T. DEPARTMENT . THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM HER AND WAS SPENT AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF SMT. U . RAJYA LAKSHMI . HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SHE HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAID FACT IN HER DEPOSITION BEFORE THE I.T. DEPARTMENT . THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED IN HIS REPLY THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED FROM SMT. U. RAJYA LAKSHMI FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF PURCHASE OF URBAN LAND AND AGRICULTURA L LANDS ON HER BEHALF , BY WHICH , HE RECEIVED THE COMMISSION FROM HER . DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO CALLED FOR THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM THAT MONEY WAS BELONG ED TO SMT. U.RAJYA LAKSHMI , BUT ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT CASH DEPOSIT S IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WERE PERTAINING TO SMT. U.RAJYA LAKSHMI . THE ASSESSEE NEITHER PRODUCED CONFIRMATION LETTER NOR PRODUCED SMT. U.RAJYA LAKSHMI BEFORE THE AO FOR EXAMINATION . NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER WAS PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE PERTAINING TO SMT. U.RAJYA LAKSHMI AND WERE NOT RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED HIS ONUS TO PROVE THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK AC COUNT S WERE NOT BELONGING TO HIM AND 7 I.T.A. NO S.407 - 429/VIZ /201 7 (SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH) ACCORDINGLY MADE THE ADDITION AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS AS PER THE DETAILS GIVEN BELOW. A.Y. AMOUNT OF ADDITIONS IN RS. 2006 - 07 8,54,700 2007 - 08 31,14,250 2008 - 09 19,22,800 2009 - 10 35,65,480 2010 - 11 9,86,500 2011 - 12 26,76,000 2012 - 13 78,000 5 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE WENT ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) , BUT NOT PRODUCE D ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE CASH DEPOSIT S IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT WERE RELATED TO SMT. U.RAJYA LAKSHMI BUT NOT BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY AND CONVENIENCE, WE EXTRACT THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 IS AS UNDER . I HAVE CAREFUL LY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. IN THIS CASE, IT APPEARS THAT THE APPELLANT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN NON - CO - OPERATIVE AND EVASIVE IN PROVIDING INFORMATION TO THE DEPARTMENT. IT IS SEEN FROM THE RE CORDS THAT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITIES HAVE TO LOCATE THE APPELLANT FROM ONE ADDRESS TO ANOTHER IN ORDER TO SERVE THE STATUTORY NOTICES. THE UNDISPUTABLE FACT ABOUT THE CASE IS THAT THE APPELLANT OWNS BANK ACCOUNTS IN ANDHRA BANK AND DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK. THERE IS NO CONTRAVENING FACT ON THE FILE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE BANK ACCOUNTS DO NOT BELONG TO THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT'S ASSERTION THAT THE MONEY DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS DOES NOT BELONG TO HIM IS ALSO NOT SUPPORTED WITH ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDEN CE. EVEN DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT MADE ANY ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN HIS STAND INSTEAD HE TOOK THE ROUTE WHICH IS MORE CONVENIENT TO SAY THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS DO NOT BELONG TO HIM AND THAT THEY BELONGS TO 8 I.T.A. NO S.407 - 429/VIZ /201 7 (SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH) SMT. UPPU RAJYALAKSHMI. NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED IN THIS REGARD. A MERE DENIAL OF FACT IS NO GROUND FOR RELIEF. IN THIS BACKGROUND, I HAVE CALLED FOR THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CASE OF SMT. UPPU RAJYALAKSHMI FOR THE ASST.YEARS 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 IN ORD ER TO VERIFY THE FACTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF SMT. UPPU RAJYA LAKSHMI HAS SUPPLIED THE COPIES OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS AND ALSO THE STATUS REPORT OF SMT. R AJYALAKSHMI'S PROCEEDINGS IN THE DEPARTMENT. IT IS SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSMENTS IN THE CASE OF SMT. UPPU RAJYALAKSHMI WERE ALSO COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE ACT AND SHE HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THE ASST. YEARS 2006 - 07 TO 2 012 - 13. 4.2 IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE APPELLANT HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF SMT. U.RAJYA LAKSHMI, WERE WAS NO RETURN OF INCOME FILED AT ALL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ASSESSMENT ON THE ISSUE OF CASH DEPOSITS AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT SMT. U.RAJYA LAKSHMI HAS OWNED UP THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT AS CLAIMED BY HIM BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNTS BELONG S TO SMT. U PPU RAJYA LAKSHMI IS PRIMA - FACIE NOT CORRECT AND HENCE REJECTED. FROM THE STATUS REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 08/03/2007, IT IS NOTICED THAT PROSECUTION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 276CC OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN LAUNCHED AGAINST SMT. UPPU RAJYALAKSHMI FOR NON - FILING OF RETURNS OF INCOME . IN VIEW OF THE FACTS DISCUSSED ABOVE, I CONSIDERED TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,54,700/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THERE ARE NO FACTS EMERGING IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT. 6 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. DURING THE APPEAL HEARING, LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD HANDLED THE MONETARY TRANSACTIONS OF SMT. U PPU RAJYA LAKSHMI ON HER BEHALF FROM HIS ACCOUNT , FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF URBAN LANDS/AGRICULTURAL LANDS ON HER BEHALF AND RECEIVED THE COMMISSION. T HE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO FURNISH T H E EVIDENCE AS THERE WAS TREMENDOUS PRESSURE FROM SMT. U.RAJYA LAKSHMI AND OTHERS AND WAS ALSO HAVING LIFE THREAT. HE PLACED A COPY COMPLAINT MADE TO DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, HYDERABAD , DATED 19/07/2011 BEFORE US . THE LD . AR FURTHER SUBMITTED 9 I.T.A. NO S.407 - 429/VIZ /201 7 (SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH) THAT ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING FROM PILLAR TO POST TO MAKE A HIDE OUT TO SAVE HIS LIFE AND IN THE SE CIRCUMSTANCES , HE COULD NOT APPEA R BEFORE THE AO AN D SUBMIT THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE . H ENCE HE REQUESTED ON E MORE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE HIS CASE BEFORE THE AO . THE LD.AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO MADE THE ENTIRE CASH DEPOSITS AS INCOME IN THE ASSESSEES HANDS , WHICH I S INCORRECT METHOD OF COMPUTING THE INCOME . S INCE THERE WERE CASH DEPOSITS AS WELL AS WITHDRAWALS IN THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT, HE SUBMITTED THAT ONLY THE PEAK DEPOSITS REQUIRED TO BE ADDED TO THE INCOME, BUT NOT THE ENTIRE CASH DEPOSITS. THE LD.AR FURTHER S UBMITTED THAT CASH DEPOSITS BE TREATED AS MADE FROM THE CASH WITHDRAWALS. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT, IF ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY IS GIVEN, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO EXPLAIN HIS CASE FOR TAXING PEAK DEPOSITS INSTEAD OF ENTIRE CASH DEPOSITS , AND THIS TIME , THE A.R ASSURED OF FULL COOPERATION FROM THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, REQUESTED TO REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO RE - EXAMINE THE ISSUE OF CASH DEPOSITS AFRESH. 7 . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES BOTH BY THE AO AND THE LD.CIT(A) . THE AO /CIT(A) POSTED THE CASE NUMBER OF TIMES , BUT ASSESSEE NEITHER FURNISHED ANY INFORMATION BEFORE THE AO NOR BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT THE 10 I.T.A. NO S.407 - 429/VIZ /201 7 (SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH) ASSESSEE DID NOT PROVE HIS CASE WITH RELEVANT EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, ARGUED THAT LD.CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AND REQUESTED TO UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD.DR VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED FOR TAXING THE PEAK CREDITS AND TO REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE , ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT TO THE BEST JUDGMENT OF THE AO. IT IS A FACT T HAT BOTH THE AO AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNIT IES TO RE PRESENT ASSESSEES CASE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. BUT AS PER THE RECORD, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE REQUIRED INFORMATION BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THE GROUND OF LIFE THREAT FROM SMT. U.RAJYA LAKSHMI , WHOSE MONEY STATED TO HAVE BEEN HANDLE D BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS A FACT THAT SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN THE ASSESSEES CASE IN CONNECTION WITH THE CASE OF SMT.U. RAJYA LAKSHMI AND OTHERS AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF T HE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS A LIFE THREA T FROM SMT.U. RAJYA LAKSHMI AND OTHERS AND ALSO ON THE BASIS OF ASSURANCE GIVEN BY THE LD.AR TO COOPERATE WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND TO SUBMIT THE REQUIRED INFORMATION IN THE TIME FRAME, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN HIS CASE . IN THIS CASE, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF ENTIRE CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS , BUT NOT EXAMINE D THE 11 I.T.A. NO S.407 - 429/VIZ /201 7 (SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH) SOURCE AND THE APPLICATION OF CASH WITHDRAWALS IN THE ABSENCE OF INFORMATION FROM THE ASSESSEE . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE USED FOR DEPOSITI NG THE SAME IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, HENCE , ONLY PEAK CREDIT REQUIRED TO BE TAXED BUT NOT THE ENTIRE CASH DEPOSITS. HOWEVER, THE LD.A R DID NOT EXPLAIN THE PURPOSE AND THE UTILIZATION O F THE CASH WITHDRAWAL S . SINCE THE FREQUENT CASH DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS WE RE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, THE SURPLUS IF ANY , WOULD BE USED FOR DEPOSITING THE SAME IN TO BANK ACCOUNT , WHICH IS NOT RULED OUT. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PEAK CASH DEPOSITS REQUIRED TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX, AS THERE WAS FREQUENT CASH DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS IN THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, WE REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO EXAMIN E THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS AND APPLICATION OF WITHDRAWALS AND TO CONSIDER THE PEAK DEPOSITS FOR ADDITION IN THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS AFTER ANALYZING THE ENTIRE BANK DEPOSITS AND THE CASH WITHDRAWALS. THE AO IS ALSO REQUIRED TO ALLOW DUE CREDIT FOR OP ENING BALANCE AND CLOSING BALANCE OF EACH YEAR WHILE ARRIVING AT THE PEAK BALANCES. IT IS NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE AO SHOULD GIVE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT HIS CASE AND THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO COOPERATE WITH THE AO FOR COMPLETION OF THE AS SESSMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE FOR THE A.Y.2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 ARE 12 I.T.A. NO S.407 - 429/VIZ /201 7 (SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH) SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION . ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS GROUND ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE FOR THE A.Y. 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 . 9. THOUGH , ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS WERE MADE OUT OF CASH GIVEN BY SMT. U.RAJYA LAKSHMI FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL AND URBAN LANDS ON BEHALF OF HER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM EITHER BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) OR BEFORE AO . DURING THE APPEAL HEARING ALSO , THE LD.A.R FAILED TO FURNISH THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM. TH E ASSESSEE STATED IN HIS LETTER BEFORE THE AO THAT SAID SMT. U.RAJYA LAKSHMI HAS GIVEN A STATEMENT BEFORE THE INVESTIG ATING AUTHORITY, CONFIRMING THE PAYMENT OF CASH TO THE ASSESSEE , BUT THE LD.A.R. CO ULD NOT TAKE OUR ATTENTION TO THE RELEVANT STATEMENT DURING THE APPEAL HEARING . THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE MONEY DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT DOES NOT BELONG TO HI M . HENCE , WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 10 . THE NEXT COMMON GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE A.Y.S IS AS UNDER: THE CIT(A) HAVING CALLED FOR THE RECORDS AND ASSESSMENT ORDERS OF SMT. U. RAJYA LAKSHMI OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO VERIFY THE SAME AND EXPLAIN THE FACTS, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION. 13 I.T.A. NO S.407 - 429/VIZ /201 7 (SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH) DURING THE APPEAL HEARING, THE LD.AR HAS NOT PRESSED THIS GROUND. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. ACCORDINGLY , THIS ISSUE RAISED IN APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y S . 2 007 - 08 TO 2012 - 13 ARE DISMISSED. 11 . GROUND NO.4 IS ALSO A COMMON FOR ALL THE A.Y S . 2006 - 07 - TO 2012 - 13 WHICH READS AS UNDER : YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE ADDITION IS NOT BASED ON ANY SEIZED MATERIAL BUT ON THE BASIS OF CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT, THE ADDITION IS BAD IN LAW AND MAY BE DELETED. DURING THE APPEAL HEARING, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE AO MADE THE ADDITION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE BANK DEPOSITS, BUT NOT ON THE BASIS OF ANY MATERIAL FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THEREFORE, ARGUED THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE WITHOUT THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL REQUIRED TO BE DELETED AND THE AO IS NOT PERMITTED TO MAKE THE ADDITION WITHOUT HAVING THE SEIZED MATERIAL. 12 . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR ARGUED THAT IN TH E INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME, BEFORE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A AND FILED THE SAME ONLY IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S . 153A OF THE ACT. THERE WAS NO ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 143(3) BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER EARLIER . SINCE THERE WAS NO ASSESSMENT MADE IN THIS CASE AND SEARCH WAS CON DUCTED IN THE ASSESSEES CASE U/S 132 , AS PER SECTION 14 I.T.A. NO S.407 - 429/VIZ /201 7 (SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH) 153A OF THE ACT, THE AO HAS JURISDICTION TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A OF THE ACT AND TO ASSESSEE OR REASSESS THE INCOME FOR THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVAN T TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR , IN WHICH SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED OR REQUISITION MADE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR . THE LD.DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ASSESSEES CASE, NO ASSESSMENT WAS MADE BY THE AO U/S 143(3) EARLIER, THUS , ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE AO U/S 153A IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND REQUESTED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER S OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 13 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, AS PER THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD, NO ASSESSMENT WAS MADE U/S 143(3) I N THE EARLIER YEARS AND THE LD.A R DID NOT PLACE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME IN THE REGULAR COURSE. AS PER INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD , THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ONLY IN R ESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153A. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A, THE AO IS PERMITTED TO INITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME IN RESPECT OF EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR FOLLOWING WITHIN SUCH SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS AND FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO. FOR READY REFERENCE, WE EXTRACT RELEVANT PART OF SECTION 153A AS UNDER: - 15 I.T.A. NO S.407 - 429/VIZ /201 7 (SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH) ASSESSMENT IN CASE OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION. 153A. [(1)] NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 139 , SECTION 147 , SECTION 148 , SECTION 149 , SECTION 151 AND SECTION 153 , IN THE CASE OF A PERSON WHERE A SEARCH IS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 132 OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ANY ASSETS ARE REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A AFTER THE 31 ST DAY OF MAY, 2003, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ( A ) ISSUE NOTICE TO SUCH PERSON REQUIRING HIM TO FURNISH WITHIN SUCH PERIOD, AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE, THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLING WITHIN SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE ( B ), IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM AND VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER AND SETTING FORTH SUCH OTHER PARTICULARS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED AND THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL, SO FAR AS MAY BE, APPLY ACCORDINGLY AS IF SUCH RETURN WERE A RETURN REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED UNDER SECTION 139 ; ( B ) ASSESS OR REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH SEA RCH IS CONDUCTED OR REQUISITION IS MADE : PROVIDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ASSESS OR REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME IN RESPECT OF EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLING WITHIN SUCH SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT, IF ANY, RELATING TO ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLING WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS REFERRED TO IN THIS [SUB - SECTION] PENDING ON THE DATE OF INITIATION OF THE SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OR MAKING OF REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A , AS THE CASE MAY BE, SHALL ABATE. [(2) IF ANY PROCEEDING INITIATED OR ANY ORDER OF ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT MADE UNDER SUB - SECT ION (1) HAS BEEN ANNULLED IN APPEAL OR ANY OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDING, THEN, NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SUB - SECTION (1) OR SECTION 153 , THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT RELATING TO ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH HAS ABATED UNDER THE SECOND PROVISO TO SUB - SECTION (1), SHALL STAND REVIVED WITH EFFECT FROM T HE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER OF SUCH ANNULMENT BY THE COMMISSIONER: PROVIDED THAT SUCH REVIVAL SHALL CEASE TO HAVE EFFECT, IF SUCH ORDER OF ANNULMENT IS SET ASIDE.] 14 . IN THE INSTANT CA SE, THE AO HAD ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 15 3A FOR THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS AS PROVIDED IN THE A CT. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, BANK ACCOUNTS WERE FOUND , ON WHICH ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS , BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES WITH TANGIBLE EVIDENCES. IN THE SEARCH ASSESSMENTS TO BE FRAMED U/S 153A, THE AO IS REQUIRED TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME, BUT NOT ONLY THE INCOME 16 I.T.A. NO S.407 - 429/VIZ /201 7 (SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH) RESULTING OUT OF THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS U/S 132. DURING THE APPEAL HEARING, THE LD.AR DID NOT BRING ANY DECISION OF THE H ONBLE HIGH C OURT OR THE APEX C OURT TO SUPPORT HIS ARGUMENT. THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE RIGHTLY ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME AND ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED FOR THE A.Y.S . 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13. 15 . THE NEXT GROUND IN THIS APPEAL FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS INVOLVED IS DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VIA OF THE ACT AS PER THE DETAILS GIVEN BELOW : 16 . THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE THE CIT(A). THEREFORE, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION AND THE SAME WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A). DURING THE APPEAL HEARING, LD.AR FAIRLY C ONCEDED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED FOR THE A.YS 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13. A.Y. RS. 2006 - 07 24,000 2007 - 08 1,32,000 2008 - 09 1,90,150 2009 - 10 1,59,700 2010 - 11 1,64,000 2011 - 12 1,64,000 2012 - 13 1,64,000 17 I.T.A. NO S.407 - 429/VIZ /201 7 (SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH) 17 . FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 APART FROM THE ISSUES /GROUNDS DISCUSSED AND ADJUDICATED IN THE ABOVE PARAGRAPHS , THE ASSESSEE RAISED ONE MORE ISSUE AS G ROUND NO.5 , WHICH IS RELATED TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF SCORPIO VEHICLE. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, CERTAIN INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND AND SEIZED VIDE ANNEXURE A/DS/P.O - 1 /1 , AS PER WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE SCORPIO CAR WITH DOWN PAYMENT OF RS.4 .00 LAKHS IN CASH AND THE EVIDENCE WAS FOUND FOR PURCHASE OF SECOND CAR FROM THE LOAN TAKEN FROM ICICI BANK FOR RS.2,70,000/ - . FURTHER , THE EVIDENCE WAS ALSO FOUND FOR PAYMENT OF RS.1,04,620/ - IN CASH TO MAHINDRA FINANCE FOR SCORPIO CAR NO.AP36 4567. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAI N THE SOURCE FOR PA YMENT OF RS. 5,04,620/ - (RS. 4,00,00 + RS. 1,04,620) BEFORE THE AO. THEREFORE, THE AO PROPOSED TO MAKE THE ADDITION OF RS.5,04,620/ - AS UNE XPLAINED INCOME FOR THE A.Y.2007 - 08 . IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE SOURCE WAS MADE OUT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM SMT.U.RAJYA LAKSHMI , BUT FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE CLAIM. THEREFORE, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.5,04,620/ - AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 18 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE WENT ON A PPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) , WHO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION STATING THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS 18 I.T.A. NO S.407 - 429/VIZ /201 7 (SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH) FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM THAT THE FUNDS WERE RECEIVED FROM SMT.UPPU RAJYA L AKHSMI FOR PURCHASE OF CAR. FOR READY REFERENCE, WE EXTRACT THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS AS UNDER : 4.3. WITH REGARD TO PURCHASE OF SCORPIO VEHICLE, IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE SAID PURCHASE WAS MET OUT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM SMT.U.RAJYALAKSHMI TOWARDS COMMISSION INCOME. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DENIED THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT STATING THAT NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT AND TREATED THE SAME AS EXPENDITURE MET OUT OF UNACCOUNTED /UNEXPLAINED INCOM E IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ALSO THE CONTENTS OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF SMT. UPPU RAJYALAKSHMI. THERE ARE NO FACTS EMERGING TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT REGARDING PURCHASE OF VEHICLE, BOTH THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS SMT. RAJYALAKSHMI PRIMA - FACIE, APPEARS TO BE NON - CO - OPERATIVE AND EVASIVE, IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, I AM RESTRAINED TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS.5,04,620/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF PURCH ASE OF SCORPIO VEHICLE. 19 . DURING THE APPEAL HEARING, THE LD.AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, BUT NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM SMT. U RAJYA LAKSHMI. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS UPHELD. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 2 0 . THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED AS GROUND NO.6 FOR THE A.Y.2007 - 08 IS THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.25,000/ - BEING THE LITIGATION EXPENSES TO PROTECT THE PROPERTY OF SMT.RAJYA LAKSHMI WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO BE RECEIVED FROM HER. 19 I.T.A. NO S.407 - 429/VIZ /201 7 (SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH) 2 1 . DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS.25,000/ - TOWARDS SHARE OF PAYMENT MADE TO SMT. GANNEBOYINA ANASUYA RELATING TO THE LITIGATION EXPENSES ON BEHALF OF S MT U.RAJYA LAKSHMI , WHICH WAS ST ATED TO BE INCURRED OUT OF THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM SMT. U RAJYA LAKSHMI. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM. THEREFORE, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.25,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. 2 2 . ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE EVIDENCE OR TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY AND CONVENIENCE , WE EXTRACT RELEVANT PART OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER : 4.5. REGARDING THE PAYM ENT OF RS.25,000/ - TO SMT. GANNEBOYINA ANASUTYA, IT IS STATED BY THE APPELLANT THA T THE PAYMENT WAS MADE ON BEHALF OF SMT. U.RAJYALAKSHMI TOWARDS LITIGATION EXPENSES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED AS NO EV IDENCE FOR THE SOURCES WAS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. NO MATERIAL FACTS WERE BROUGHT EVEN BEFORE ME. HENCE, I AM CONSTRAINED TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS.25,000/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 23 . DURING THE APPEAL HEARING ALSO , THE LD.AR DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE AND FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT NO EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE DO NO T FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS UPHELD. 24 . FOR THE A . Y . 2009 - 10 IN ITA NO. 410/ VIZ/ 2017 THE ASSESSEE RAISED ON MORE ISSUE AS GROUND NO.5 RELAT ING TO THE ADDITION OF RS.4,81,000/ - 20 I.T.A. NO S.407 - 429/VIZ /201 7 (SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH) BEING THE REPAYMENT OF LOAN WHICH WAS STATED TO BE MET OUT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM SMT. U RAJYA LAKSHMI. THIS ISSUE IS ALSO INVOLVED FOR THE A.Y. 2011 - 12 AS PER THE DETAILS GIVEN UNDER: 2009 - 1 0 5,75,000 / - 2011 - 12 3,45,000 / - DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE LOAN FROM HIS FATHER AS PER THE SEIZED MATERIAL BEARING NO. A/DS/11 AT PAGE NO.16 OF ANNEXURE AND MADE THE RE PAYMENT OF LOAN TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5,75,000/ - ON VARIOUS DATES FOR THE A.Y.2009 - 10 AND RS.5,00,000/ - FOR THE A.Y.2011 - 12. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE SUMS WERE PAID OUT OF THE COMMISSION RE CEIVED FROM S MT. U RAJYA LAKSHMI. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE WITH THE RELEVANT EVIDENCES . THEREFORE, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.5,75,000/ - FOR THE A.Y.2009 - 10 AND RS.5,00,000/ - FOR THE A.Y. 2 011 - 12. 25 . ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL BY GIVING CREDIT FOR THE COMMISSION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,81,000/ - FOR THE A.Y.2009 - 10 AND RS.3,45,000/ - FOR THE A.Y. 20 1 1 - 12. 26 . AGGRIEVED BY TH E ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 21 I.T.A. NO S.407 - 429/VIZ /201 7 (SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH) 27 . DURING THE APPEAL HEARING, THE LD.AR DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OR SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE EVIDENCE THAT THE REPAYMENT WAS MADE OUT OF THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM S MT. U. RAJYA LAKSHMI. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DID NOT EXPLAIN OR FURNISH THE EVIDENCE FOR THE SOURCE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS UPHELD. 28 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y.S 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN C OURT ON THIS 26 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018. S D/ - SD/ - ( D.S. SUNDER SINGH ) (V. DURGA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VISAKHAPATNAM DATED : 26 .10.2018 L.RAMA & VR/ SPS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THEASSESSEE - SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH, D.NO.11 - 23 - 2053, TEACHERS COLONY L.B.NAGAR, WARANGAL 2. THE REVENUE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, VISAKHAPATNAM 3. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , VISAKHAPATNAM 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) - 12, HYDERABAD 5. DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM