V.Devaki, Pattukkottai V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 423/CHNY/2001

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9461 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 15 year(s) 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 03-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 15-03-2001
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR B NISCHAL
• Assessee Lawyers: JAYAKUMAR SHRI V D GOPAL
• Keywords: Gift; Recovery proceedings; Block assessment
• Section: 37; 132

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . !' , # $ % [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.(SS)A.NO.18/MDS/1999 & 28/MDS/2000 BLOCK PERIOD 1987-88 TO 1997-98 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE III(2) CHENNAI VS. SMT. V. DEVAKI L/H OF LATE R. VELLAIYAN CHETTIAR 20, RAJAPALAYAM STREET PATTUKOTTAI [ GI NO. 724 - V ] ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' /RESPONDENT) ./ I.T.A.NO.423/MDS/2001 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1997-98 SMT. V. DEVAKI 47, RAJAPALAYAM STREET PATTUKOTTAI 641 601 VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE III(2) CHENNAI [GI NO. 754 - D] ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' /RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : DR. B.NISCHAL, JCIT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI JAYAKUMAR , ADVOCATE FOR SHRI V.D GOPAL, ADVOCATE / DATE OF HEARING : 03 - 02 - 2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 - 04 - 2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE REVENUE FILED APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDERS OF T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, CHENNAI, DA TED 29.4.1999 IT(SS)A NO.18/99 ETC. :- 2 -: AND 14.3.2000 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1987-88 TO 1997- 98. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS), CHENNAI , DATED 23.1.2001. SINCE COMMON ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERA TION IN ALL THE APPEALS, WE HEARD THEM TOGETHER AND DISPOSING OF TH E SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL IN IT(SS)A.NO.18/MDS/1999. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF ` 2.50 LAKHS. 3. DR.B. NISCHAL, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBM ITTED THAT RHERE WAS A SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE AS SESSEE U/S 132 OF THE ACT ON 21.1.1997. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH O PERATION, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND TWO SETS OF BOOKS OF ACCO UNT RELATING TO MONEY LENDING BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED FI XED DEPOSIT MADE IN THE BANK TO THE EXTENT OF ` 2.50 LAKHS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE FIXED DEPOSIT DISCLOSED IN T HE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT WAS FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE OF THE ASSE SSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED B Y THE ASSESSEE FOR MONEY LENDING BUSINESS, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAV E DISCLOSED THE FIXED DEPOSIT TO THE DEPARTMENT, THEREFORE, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER MADE IT(SS)A NO.18/99 ETC. :- 3 -: ADDITION OF ` 2.50 LAKHS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER , THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED THE DEPOSIT MADE WITH BANK IN THE REGULAR B OOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME HAS NOT EXPIRED, THEREFORE, THE MONEY DEPOSITED IN THE FIXED DEPOSIT CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME U/S 158B(B) OF THE ACT. ACC ORDING TO THE LD. DR THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE DISCLOSED THE DEPOSIT IN THE REGULAR COURSE BUT FOR THE SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE WAS FORCED TO DISCLOSE THE SAME THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELE TING THE ADDITION. 2. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI JAYAKUMAR, LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAIN ED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR MONEY LENDING BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE FIXED DEPOSIT MADE IN THE BANK IN THE COURSE OF ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN FACT, DEPOSITS WERE MADE IN THE N AMES OF THE ASSESSEE, HIS WIFE, DAUGHTER AND GRANDSON TO THE EX TENT OF ` 21,32,163/-. ALL THE FDS WERE ENTERED IN THE REGUL AR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH WAS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPE RATION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE DEPOSITS WERE ENTERED IN TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AT PAGE 66. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, MADE A DDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON THE BASIS OF REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT(SS)A NO.18/99 ETC. :- 4 -: ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, WHEN THE ASSESSEE WA S MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THE COURSE OF REGULAR BUSINESS AND THE DEPOSITS WERE ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO REASON TO DOUBT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WOULD FILE TH E RETURN OF INCOME ON THE BASIS OF REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. SINCE TH E TIME LIMIT FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS NOT EXPIRED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO REASON TO DOUBT THE GENUINENESS OF THE ENTRIES MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINES S. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPOSITS MADE AS ON 31.3 .1997 WAS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE-HUF. ASSUMING FOR ARGUME NT SAKE THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE DISCLOSED THE DEPOSITS MAD E IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSI NESS, STILL NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE FOR THE REASON THAT THE SOUR CE OF DEPOSIT WAS EXPLAINED AS REALIZATION OF THE EARLIER DEPOSIT FRO M DIFFERENT BANKS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE DEPOSIT WAS EARLI ER MADE IN ANOTHER BANK AND ON MATURITY THE SAME AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED. THEREFORE, THE SOURCE FOR MAKING THE DEPOSIT WAS EXPLAINED AND IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AD MITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED DEPOSITS TO THE EXTENT OF ` 21,32,163/- DURING THE IT(SS)A NO.18/99 ETC. :- 5 -: COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT IS ALSO NOT I N DISPUTE THAT THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANKS WERE ENTERED IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT AT PAGE 66. THE ONLY APPREHENSION OF THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE DISCLOSED THE DEPOSITS IN T HE REGULAR COURSE FOR TAXATION. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED THE D EPOSITS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED IN THE REGULAR COURSE O F BUSINESS, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE CA NNOT BE ANY REASON FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DOUBT THAT THE ASSES SEE WOULD NOT HAVE DISCLOSED THE SAME BUT FOR THE SEARCH. IF THE IN TENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT TO DISCLOSE THE SAME, THEN HE WOU LD NOT HAVE ENTERED THE SAME IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. FURTHERMORE, IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE MATURITY AMOUNT OF EAR LIER DEPOSIT WAS THE SOURCE FOR MAKING THE PRESENT DEPOSIT. THEREFORE, AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, EVEN IF THE A SSESSEE INTENDED NOT TO DISCLOSE THIS AMOUNT, IT CANNOT BE ASSESSED IN T HE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION SINCE THE SOURCE FOR DEPOSIT IS MATUR ITY OF THE EARLIER DEPOSIT. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE SA ME IS CONFIRMED. 4. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO ADVANCE MADE BY SMT. DEIVANAI TO SHRI VELLAICHAMY TO THE EXTENT OF ` 3 LAKHS. IT(SS)A NO.18/99 ETC. :- 6 -: 5. DR.B.NISCHAL, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES WIFE SMT. SMT. DEIVANAI, ADVANCED A SUM OF ` 3 LAKHS BY CHEQUE. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUN D FD OF ` 4 LAKHS. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS WRONGLY CONSIDERED AS INCOME. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, SMT. DEIVANAI COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF ` 2,60,000/- SAID TO BE RECEIVED FROM SHRI MANIKANDAN. ACCORDING TO THE LD . DR, SMT. DEIVANAI CLAIMED THAT SHE RECEIVED A SUM OF ` 1 LAKH FROM THE ASSESSEE-HUF AND SUNDRY CREDIT OF ` 60,000/-. SMT. DEIVANAI ALSO CLAIMED THAT SHE RECEIVED A SUM OF ` 2,84,970/- FROM CHIT CONTRIBUTION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE SO CALLED EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS AN AFTERTHOUGHT. THE SAME WAS NOT AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR ON THE DATE OF SEARCH OPERATION. NO MAT ERIAL IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTRIBUTE D TO THE CHIT TRANSACTION. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HA VE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI JAYAKUMAR, THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADVANCE MADE TO THE AS SESSEE BY HIS WIFE SMT. DEIVANAI AND FD OF ` 4 LAKHS WAS ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINES S BY SMT V.DEIVANAI. THEREFORE, THE ADVANCE MADE TO SHRI VE LLAICHAMY AND THE FD WAS MEANT FOR DISCLOSURE TO THE DEPARTMENT. IN FACT, THE BOOKS IT(SS)A NO.18/99 ETC. :- 7 -: OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE SMT. DEIVANAI WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT A SUM OF ` 2,60,000/- WAS RECEIVED ON 24.11.1995 FROM SHRI MANIKANDAN AND RM VELLAIYAN HUF AND FOUR SUNDRY CREDITS. THE RECEIPT OF MONEY FROM RM VELLAIYAN-HUF WAS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF ` 3,47,500/- ON 26.11.1995 OWNED BY ALL THE FAMILY ME MBERS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SUNDRY CREDIT OF ` 60,000/- AND OTHER ELEVEN CREDITS OF ` 18,000/- EACH WERE ALSO FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNT. THE TOTAL SUNDRY CREDIT WHICH WAS FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NT MAINTAINED IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS TO THE EXTENT OF ` 6,30,000/- WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. THEREFO RE, THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE ADVANCE GIVEN BY SMT. DEIVANAI TO THE EXTENT OF ` 3 LAKHS AND THE FD MADE WITH BANK TO THE EXTENT OF ` 4 LAKHS, ACCORDINGLY, DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. TH E BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE MADE CONSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH OPER ATION CONDUCTED U/S 132 OF THE ACT. U/S 158BB(1) OF THE ACT, THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAS TO BE COMPUTED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIA L FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION AND THE INFORMATION WHIC H IS RELATABLE TO IT(SS)A NO.18/99 ETC. :- 8 -: THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPER ATION. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE SUNDRY CREDITS AND FD MADE BY THE A SSESSEE WERE FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE AS SESSEE IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF MONEY LENDING BUSINESS. IT IS NO T IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED A SUM OF ` 3,30,000/- AS INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. THE CIT(A) AFTER REFERRING TO THE ENTRIES MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION , MORE PARTICULARLY AT PAGE 56, FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE FOR MAKING THE DEPOSIT AND GIVING THE ADVANCE. IN THOS E CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE W ITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 8. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITIO N OF ` 5,32,160/- TOWARDS ADVANCE MADE BY SMT. V.DEVAKI TO SHRI VILAS SETH AND ANOTHER SUM OF ` 2 LAKHS TO SHRI JAGANATHAN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO MADE ADDITION OF ` 50,000/- TOWARDS FD IN BANK OF MADURA. 9. DR. B. NISCHAL, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ADVANCE W AS MADE TO SHRI VILAS SETH AND HIS WIFE SMT. LAKSHMI AMMAL TO THE EXTENT OF ` 6 LAKHS. THIS WAS NOT DISCLOSED BY SMT. DEVAKI. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ADVANCE MADE TO SMT. LAKSHMI AMMAL T O THE EXTENT OF ` 6 LAKHS WAS NOT DEBITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. IT(SS)A NO.18/99 ETC. :- 9 -: DR, SMT. DEVAKI COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE FOR MA KING THE FD OF ` 50,000/- IN THE BANK. SMT. DEVAKI HAS ALSO MADE AD VANCE OF ` 2 LAKHS TO ONE SHRI JAGANATHAN ON TWO OCCASIONS. IN THE AB SENCE OF ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION, ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION. 10. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI JAYAKUMAR, THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADVANCE MADE TO SHRI VI LAS SETH AND HIS WIFE LAKSHMI AMMAL TO THE EXTENT OF ` 6 LAKHS CAME FROM THE KNOWN SOURCE WHICH WAS DISCLOSED BY SMT. DEVAKI. ACCORDI NG TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A), AFTER REFERRING TO PAGE 22 OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, FOUND THAT SMT. DE VAKI HAD SUFFICIENT SOURCE TO MAKE THE ADVANCE. REFERRING TO THE ADVAN CE MADE TO SHRI JAGANATHAN TO THE EXTENT OF ` 1 LAKH ON 6.2.1995 AND ANOTHER SUM OF ` 1 LAKHS ON 13.2.1995, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THA T THE ENTRIES WERE MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. WHEN THE ADVANCE MADE TO SHRI J AGANATHAN WAS FOUND ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED I N THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JU STIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELE TED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT(SS)A NO.18/99 ETC. :- 10 -: 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. TH E ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION OF ADVANCE TO SHRI VILA S SETH AND HIS WIFE SMT. LAKSHMI AMMAL, SHRI JAGANTHAN AND THE DEPOSIT IN THE BANK WERE ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ADVANCE MADE TO SHRI JAGANATHAN ON 6.2.1995 AND 13. 2.21995 BY TWO CHEQUES WAS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE FD OF ` 50,000/- IS NOTHING BUT A RENEWAL OF THE EARLIER DEPOSIT MAD E ON 6.12.1994. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF ADVANCE AND THE FD. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE ENTERED THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE FD IS ONLY A RENEW AL OF THE EARLIER DEPOSIT, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITIO N MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND ACCORDIN GLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 12. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO ADVANCE MADE BY SHRI MANIKANDAN. 13. DR. N.NISCHAL, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT SHRI MANIKANDA N, A MINOR ON THE DATE OF SEARCH WAS NOT ASSESSED TO TAX . HE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ACCUMULATION OF A MOUNT WAS BY WAY IT(SS)A NO.18/99 ETC. :- 11 -: OF GIFTS BY THE ASSESSEE, HIS WIFE, AND SMT.DEVAKI , DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE . THE INCOME FROM MONEY LENDING WAS CLUBB ED IN THE HANDS OF SMT. DEIVANAI, WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 64 OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, SHRI MANIKANDAN MADE ADVANCE OF ` 1 LAKH TO JAGANATHAN AND ANOTHER SUM OF ` 1 LAKH TO DR.S.RAVICHANDRAN. SHRI MANIKANDAN HAS ALSO MADE FD OF ` 2 LAKHS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE FD WAS MADE ON MATURITY OF AN EARLIER DEPOSIT. HOWEVER, NO DET AILS WERE FURNISHED WITH REGARD TO MATURITY OF THE EARLIER DEPOSIT BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHEN THE DEPOSIT WAS EARLIER MADE AND WHETHER SUCH DEPOSIT WAS DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSME NT YEAR. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS BY SHRI MANIKANDAN ARE N OTHING BUT AN AFTERTHOUGHT. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO H AVE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 14. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI JAYAKUMAR, LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE TRANSACTIONS WER E RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED IN THE REGULAR COURSE O F BUSINESS. THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE FD OF ` 1 LAKHS MADE ON 30.12.1996 WAS OUT OF THE MATURITY AMOUNT OF EARLIER DEPOSIT OF ` 2 LAKHS WITH THE SAME BANK. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, NO MATERIAL WA S FOUND DURING THE IT(SS)A NO.18/99 ETC. :- 12 -: COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. THE BALANCE SHEET FILE D BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS REFLECTED THE TRANSACTIONS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. C OUNSEL, THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS PR EPARED ON THE BASIS OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSE E. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT CORRECT IN SAYING THAT THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT INDICATE THE MAINTENANCE OF SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 15. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON THE DATE OF SEARCH OPERATION, SHRI MANIKANDAN WAS MINOR AND HE WAS NOT ASSESSED TO TAX. THE INCOME OF MANIKANDAN WAS ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF SMT. DEVAKI, MOTHER OF MANIKANDAN U/S 64 OF THE ACT. THE ASSE SSEE CLAIMS THAT SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS MAINTAINED FOR THE MI NOR. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT STATED THE MAINTENANCE OF REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT . THE TRANSACTION OF ADVANCE TO SHRI JAGANATHAN AND DR.S RAVICHANDRAN WAS DULY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE, LATE R. VELLAIYAN CHETTIAR AND HIS WIFE SMT. DEIVANAI WERE ASSESSED TO WEALTH TAX UPTO IT(SS)A NO.18/99 ETC. :- 13 -: ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93. THEY ARE ALSO ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX FOR THE LAST 35 YEARS. WHEN THE INCOME OF THE MINOR MA NIKANDAN WAS ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF SMT. DEVAKI U/S 64 OF THE ACT, ADDING THE VERY SAME INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IS N OT JUSTIFIED. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT REGULAR BOOKS OF A CCOUNT WAS MAINTAINED IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTIONS BY MINOR MANIKANDAN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CLAIMS THAT THE MAINTENANCE OF BO OKS OF ACCOUNT WAS NOT INDICTED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION. THE FACT R EMAINS THAT NO MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPER ATION, THEREFORE, THE TRANSACTION MADE BY SHRI MANIKANDAN CANNOT BE C ONSTRUED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE BLOCK A SSESSMENT IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE EMPLOYED BY THE PARLIAMENT IN SEC. 158BB(1) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGL Y, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 16. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITIO N OF ` 5,17,857/- AS BAD DEBT. 17. DR. B.NISCHAL, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, IF ANY BAD DEBT REMAINS, IT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED ONLY UPTO THE DATE OF SEARCH. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY BAD DEBT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED UPTO THE DAT E OF SEARCH. NO IT(SS)A NO.18/99 ETC. :- 14 -: ENTRIES WERE MADE IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT M AINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.1996 TO 21.1.1997. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE DEBT HAS BECOME BAD. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITIO N WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFIED CAUSE. 18. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI JAYAKUMAR, LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED RE GULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THE COURSE OF MONEY LENDING BUSINESS. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBT ON THE GRO UND THAT THERE WAS NO MATERIAL FOND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERAT ION THAT THE DEBT HAS BECOME BAD. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A), THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE TOWARDS ADVOCATE FEES AND ALSO MADE A COMPLAINT TO THE POLICE FOR RECOVERY OF THE AMOUNT. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT A SUM OF ` 5,17,837/- WAS DEBITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUN T FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.3.1996 AND CREDITED TO THE PARTY S ACCOUNT. THIS IS THE CORRECT METHOD OF WRITING OFF THE BAD AND UNREC OVERABLE DEBT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ADVANCE MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE ABLE TO RECOVER EVEN A SINGLE PIE. THE PRONOTE WAS IN FACT FOUND BY THE DEPARTMENT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, WH EN THE MONEY WAS IT(SS)A NO.18/99 ETC. :- 15 -: ADVANCED IN THE COURSE OF MONEY LENDING BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE CAN CLAIM THE IRRECOVERABLE DEBT U/S 36(1)(VII) R.W.S 36(2) OF THE ACT. REFERRING TO THE CONTENTION OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE MONEY WAS ADVANCED OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF AC COUNT, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE MONEY ADVANCED IN THE R EGULAR COURSE OF MONEY LENDING BUSINESS CAN BE CLAIMED AS BAD DEBT P ROVIDED THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT RECOVER ANY MONEY FROM THE RECIP IENT OF THE ADVANCE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSE E HAS WRITTEN OFF THE OUTSTANDING LOAN IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSIN ESS, THEREFORE, IT HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS BAD DEBT. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN OTHERWISE, IT HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS BUSINESS LO SS U/S 37 OF THE ACT. REFERRING TO THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SOMASUNDARA MILLS, 51 ITR 650, THE LD. COUN SEL SUBMITTED THAT THE MONEY IS STOCK-IN-TRADE IN THE MONEY LENDING BU SINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LOSS OF STOCK-IN-TRADE HAS TO BE CER TAINLY TREATED AS REVENUE LOSS, THEREFORE, EVEN IF IT COULD NOT BE AL LOWED U/S 36(1)(VII) AS BAD DEBT, THE SAME HAS TO BE NECESSARILY ALLOWED U/S 37 AS BUSINESS LOSS. 19. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS ` 19,68,340/- AS BAD DEBT. THE CONTENTION OF THE REV ENUE IS THAT BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THE ASSESSEE COULD NO T ESTABLISH THAT THE IT(SS)A NO.18/99 ETC. :- 16 -: DEBT HAS BECOME BAD. THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT IN THE CASE OF ADVANCE MADE TO SHRI VILAS SETH, NO OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN T O THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DEBT HAS BECOME BAD. ACCORDINGL Y, THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVIDE AN OPPORT UNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DEBT HAS REALLY BECO ME BAD AND HAS WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS REQUIRED U/ S 36(1)(VII) OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) FURTHER FOUND THAT SHRI VILAS SETH CHEATED THE ASSESSEE BY PLEDGING GOLD COATED SILVER BAR AS IF I T WAS A GOLD BAR. FROM THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INITIATED LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SHRI VILAS SETH AND HIS PROPERTIES WERE ALSO ATTACHED. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER MADE ADDITION ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABL ISH THAT THE DEBT HAS BECOME BAD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS WRITTEN OFF THE DEBT AS BAD IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAI NED IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS. EVEN IF ASSUMING FOR ARGUMENT SAKE THAT THE DEBT WAS NOT WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, S TILL IT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS BUSINESS LOSS SINCE THE MONEY WAS ADV ANCED IN THE COURSE OF MONEY LENDING BUSINESS. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY FOUN D THAT A SUM OF ` 5,17,837/- IS TO BE ALLOWED AS THE SAME WAS WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT(SS)A NO.18/99 ETC. :- 17 -: 20. REFERRING TO THE CLAIM OF ` 10.5 LAKHS, THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE SAME WAS NOT WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE AN O PPORTUNITY TO WRITE OFF THE SAME IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THIS TRIBUN AL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT WRIT TEN OFF, IT HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS BUSINESS LOSS. HOWEVER, IF THE ASSESSE E WAS ABLE TO RECOVER THE MONEY IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR S, THE SAME HAS TO BE OFFERED AS INCOME OF THE YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS RECEIVED. THEREFORE, THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT(A) IS TO OFFER AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO WRITE OFF THE BAD DEBT TO THE EXTENT OF ` 10.5 LAKHS MAY NOT BE NECESSARY AT THIS STAGE. 21. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN I.T.(SS)A.NO.28/MDS/2 000 IS ONLY AGAINST THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT(A) TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO WRITE OFF THE DEBT TO THE EXTENT OF ` 10.5 LAKHS. SINCE THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE AMOUNT OF ` 10.5 LAKHS WAS TO BE ALLOWED AS BUSINESS LOSS IN THE COURSE OF MONEY LENDING BUSINE SS OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNIT Y TO THE ASSESSEE TO WRITE OFF THE SAME. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. IT(SS)A NO.18/99 ETC. :- 18 -: 22. NOW COMING TO THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. V. DEVAKI, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98, THE ONLY GROUN D IS WITH REGARD TO CLAM OF BAD DEBT TO THE EXTENT OF ` 5,87,387/-. 23. SHRI JAYAKUMAR, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE ENGAGED HERSELF IN THE BUSINESS OF M ONEY LENDING. IN THE COURSE OF MONEY LENDING, THE ASSESSEE ADVANCED A SUM OF ` 6 LAKHS ON 24.10.1994 TO SMT. LAKSHMI AMMAL WIFE OF S HRI VILAS SETH. THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED A SUM OF ` 50,000/- ON THE SAME DATE TOWARDS INTEREST AND WHAT WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO SMT. LAKSHMI AMMAL WAS ` 5,50,000/-. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSEES FATHER SHRI R. VELLAIYAN CHETTIAR ALSO A DVANCED A SUM OF ` 6 LAKHS TO SRI VILAS SETH ON 24.10.1994. BOTH DEBTS HAVE BECOME BAD. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF ` 37,837/- FOR RECOVERY OF THE AMOUNT OF MONEY ADVANCED TO SMT. LAKSHMI AMM AL. SINCE THE RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS FAILED, THE ASSESSEE HAS WRIT TEN OFF THE ADVANCE OF ` 5,50,000/- AND THE LEGAL EXPENSES OF ` 37,837/- IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN OFF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF ` 5,87,837/- AS BAD DEBT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND CLAIMED THE SAME AS BAD DEBT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON TH E GROUND THAT THE PROPERTY MORTGAGED WAS BROUGHT TO SALE AND THE ASS ESSEE AND HER FATHER WERE THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER AND REMITTED THE AMOUNT TO THE IT(SS)A NO.18/99 ETC. :- 19 -: COURT. THE AMOUNT REALIZED ON SALE OF THE PROPERTY WOULD NATURALLY BE PAYABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE LOAN HAS BECOME BAD. THE AMOUNT ADVANCED BY THE ASSESS EE AND HER FATHER TO THE EXTENT OF ` 12 LAKHS WAS IN FACT MADE BY THE ASSESSEES FATHER SHRI R. VELLAIYAN CHETTIAR AND NOT BY THE A SSESSEE, THEREFORE, IF IT COULD NOT BE RECOVERED, THE SAME COULD NOT BE CL AIMED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE INCURRED LEGAL EXPENSES OF ` 37,837/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS INCURRED I N ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESS EES FATHER, SHRI R. VELLAIYAN CHETTIAR ADVANCED A SUM OF ` 10.50 LAKHS TO VILAS SETH ON MORTGAGE OF A GOLD BAR. THE GOLD BAR IN FACT WAS F OUND TO BE GOLD PLATED SILVER BAR, THEREFORE, THE ADVANCE OF ` 10.50 LAKHS BECAME BAD. THE ASSESSEES FATHER MADE AN ATTEMPT TO RECOVER T HE AMOUNT OF ` 10.50 LAKHS BY GIVING FURTHER ADVANCE OF ` 6 LAKHS FROM HIS OWN FUNDS AND ANOTHER ADVANCE OF ` 6 LAKHS WAS MADE FROM THE FUNDS OF SMT DEVAKI ON THE MORTGAGE OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY BELONG ING TO SHRI VILAS SETH. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE AND HER FATHER INSTIT UTED A SUIT TO RECOVER THE SAME BY BRINGING THE PROPERTY TO SALE. IN VIEW OF THE SUIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THERE IS NO CHOICE FOR RECOVERY OF THE MONEY ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HER FATHER. THEREFORE, THE SAME WAS CLAIMED AS BAD DEBT. HENCE , THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE CLAIM. IT(SS)A NO.18/99 ETC. :- 20 -: 24. ON THE CONTRARY, DR. B. NISCHAL, LD. DR SUBMITTED T HAT NO DOUBT THE ASSESSEES FATHER ADVANCED A SUM OF ` 6 LAKHS. THE ADVANCE WAS MADE ON PLEDGE OF THE PROPERTY OF SHRI VILAS SETH. THEREFORE, IT IS A SECURED LOAN. ON THE SUIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEES FATHER, THE PROPERTY OF SHRI VILAS SETH WAS BROUGHT TO SALE AND THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FATHER BECAME THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDE R AND THE MONEY WAS DEPOSITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE COURT, THEREFOR E, NATURALLY, THE ASSESSEE WILL GET BACK THE MONEY FROM THE COURT. H ENCE, AT THIS STAGE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE DEBT HAS BECOME BAD. TH E ENTIRE ADVANCE WAS MADE FROM THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI R. VELLAIYAN, FAT HER OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM AN Y AMOUNT AS BAD DEBT. IF AT ALL THE ASSESSEE HAS ADVANCED A SUM O F ` 6 LAKHS TO SMT. LAKSHMI AMMAL AS CLAIMED, THE SAME WAS NOT OUT OF T HE FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADVANCED ANY LOAN FROM HER OWN FUNDS, THE SAME CANNOT BE CLAIMED AS BAD DEBT. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. 25. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. TH E ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT SHE ADVANCED A SUM OF ` 6 LAKHS TO SMT. LAKSHMI AMMAL ON 24.10.1994 AFTER DEDUCTING A SUM OF ` 50,000/- TOWARDS INTEREST. THE IT(SS)A NO.18/99 ETC. :- 21 -: ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ADVANCE WAS NOT FROM THE OWN FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE CIT(A), IT APPEARS THAT SHRI R. VELLAIYAN, FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE, ATTEMPTED TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY OF SHRI VILAS SETH IN THE PROCESS OF RECOVERY OF THE MONEY ADVANCED TO HIM. ONE SHRI A SIVAJI, BROTHER-IN-LAW OF SHRI VILAS SET H FILED A SUIT BEFORE THE CIVIL COURT CLAIMING THAT HE HAD INTEREST IN TH E SAID PROPERTY. THE CIVIL SUIT APPEARS TO BE PENDING. WHEN THE SUIT FI LED BY SHRI A. SIVAJI WAS PENDING, IT IS NOT KNOWN HOW THE ASSESSEE OR S HRI R. VELLAIYAN CHETTIAR WAS ABLE TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY IN THE A UCTION BY THE COURT. THE CIT(A) FURTHER FOUND THAT SHRI R. VELLAIYAN HAS ALSO CLAIMED BAD DEBT OF ` 5,87,837/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 ON IDEN TICAL SET OF FACTS. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED THE SAME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97. HOWE VER, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BAD DEBT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1 997-98. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS TO BE VERIFIED WHETHER THE PRO PERTY OF SHRI VILAS SETH OR SMT. LAKSHMI AMMAL WAS BROUGHT TO SALE BY T HE COURT AND WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS PARTICIPATED IN THE AUCTI ON OR NOT. SINCE THE MATERIALS ARE NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THIS TRIBUN AL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS T O VERIFY THE DETAILS AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH L AW. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE A ND THE CLAIM OF BAD IT(SS)A NO.18/99 ETC. :- 22 -: DEBT OF ` 5,87,387/- IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL REEXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH AND BRING ON RECORD ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS INCLUDING TH E CIVIL SUITS FILED BY SHRI R. VELLAIYAN CHETTIAR, FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE , AND SHRI A. SIVAJI, BROTHER-IN-LAW OF SHRI VILAS SETH AND THEREAFTER DE CIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPOR TUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 26. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEALS I.T.(SS)A.NOS. 18/MDS/1999 AND 28/MDS/2000 ARE DISMISSED WHEREAS T HE ASSESSEES APPEAL I.T.A.NO.423/MDS/2001 IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND APRIL, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . !' ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ) ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / CHENNAI / DATED: 22 ND APRIL, 2016 RD !'# $# / COPY TO: 1 . %& / APPELLANT 4. ' / CIT 2. (%& / RESPONDENT 5. #)* !! +, / DR 3. ' () / CIT(A) 6. *./ 0 / GF