Smt Ch Triveni, Kakinada V. The ITO, Ward-2, Kakinada

ITA 505/VIZ/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 50140 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 01-02-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 15-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K SINGH
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Gift; Principle of natural justice; Peak credit; Source of fund; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 148; 144

Judgement Text

ITA NOS 488 27 489 OF 2007-477 OF 07 AND 505 OF 2010 CHAPPIDI SWAMINADHA RAO KAKINADA PAGE 1 OF 16 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.488, 27 AND 489/VIZAG/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR S: 2002 - 03 TO 2004 - 05 CHAPPIDI SWAMINADHA RAO, KAKINADA VS. ITO WARD-2, KAKINADA (APPELLANT) PAN NO: AEGPC 1860 A (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.477/VIZAG/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 ITO WARD-2, KAKINADA VS. CHAPPIDI SWAMINADHA RAO, KAKINADA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO: AEGPC 1860 A ITA NO.505/VIZAG/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 SMT. CH. TRIVENI, W/O CH.SWAMINADHA RAO, KAKINADA VS. ITO WARD-2, KAKINADA (APPELLANT) PAN NO.AGGPC 5735 J (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI G.V.N. HARI, CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI R.K. SINGH, SR.DR ORDER PER SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: ALL THESE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS P ASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), VIJAYAWADA FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS MENTION ED ABOVE. CERTAIN ISSUES URGED IN THESE APPEALS ARE INTERLINKED. HEN CE THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON O RDER. SHRI CH. SWAMINADHA RAO IS THE HUSBAND OF SMT. CH.TRIVENI. ITA NOS 488 27 489 OF 2007-477 OF 07 AND 505 OF 2010 CHAPPIDI SWAMINADHA RAO KAKINADA PAGE 2 OF 16 2. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE CASES ARE STATED I N BRIEF. A SURVEY OPERATION UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN THE HANDS OF SHRI CH. SWAMINADHA RAO ON 29.1.2003. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY A LARGE NUMBER OF PRONOTES DATING FROM THE YEAR 1992 TO 200 3 EVIDENCING MONEY LENDING ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND. BESIDES THE ABOVE, DOCUMENTS EVIDENCING INVESTMENTS MADE IN IMM OVABLE PROPERTIES IN THE NAME OF WIFE AND DAUGHTER OF SHRI CH. SWAMINADH A RAO WERE ALSO FOUND. SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS O F SHRI SWAMINADHA RAO FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) BY MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS. SINCE HE DID NOT CO-OPER ATE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSMENTS IN HIS HANDS FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEARS 2002-03 AND 2004-05 WERE COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT. SHRI CH. SWAMINADHA RAO, FILED APPEALS BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS AND GOT PARTIAL RELIEF. STILL AGGRIEVED, HE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US IN ALL THE THREE YEARS. THE REVENUE IS CONTESTING ONE OF THE RELIEFS GRANTED BY LEARNED CIT(A) TO SHRI SWAMINADHA RAO IN THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2004-05. THE ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF SMT. CH. TRIVENI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 WAS COMPLETED ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. IN THE A PPEAL FILED BY HER BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A), THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORIT Y ALLOWED THE PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT TO CONTINUE TILL THE OUT COME OF THE APP EALS FILED BY HER HUSBAND, SHRI CH. SWAMINADHA RAO BEFORE THE ITAT. IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE US BELATEDLY, SMT. CH.TRIVENI IS ASSAILING T HE SAID DECISION OF LEARNED CIT(A). 3. FIRST WE SHALL DEAL WITH A ISSUE WHICH IS COMMON IN ALL THE THREE APPEALS FILED BY SHRI CH. SWAMINADHA RAO. IT RELATE S TO THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTIO N OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT RAMACHANDRAPURAM. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME ARE STATED IN BRIEF. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, IT CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT SHRI CH. SWAMINADHA RAO HAD CONSTRUCTED ONE RE SIDENTIAL COMPLEX AT ITA NOS 488 27 489 OF 2007-477 OF 07 AND 505 OF 2010 CHAPPIDI SWAMINADHA RAO KAKINADA PAGE 3 OF 16 RAMACHANDRAPURAM IN THE NAME OF HIS MINOR DAUGHTER COVERING PLINTH AREA OF 5690 SQ. FEET. IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME THE ASS ESSEE HAD DECLARED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS UNDER: ASSESSMENT YEAR AMOUNT INVESTED DURING THE YEAR PERCENTAGE CUMULATIVE TOTAL 2002-03 RS.5,95,000 36% RS.5,95,000 2003-04 RS.6,15,000 37% RS.12,10,000 2004-05 RS.4,38,000 27% RS.16,48,000 HOWEVER, HE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM OF COS T OF CONSTRUCTION WITH ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HENCE, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, HE FILED A VALUATI ON REPORT OBTAINED FROM A REGISTERED VALUER, WHO HAD ESTIMATED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS.26.00 LAKHS. IN THE SAID VALUATION REPORT, THE PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION WAS SHOWN AS FROM APRIL 2001 TO MARCH, 2004. IN ADDITION TO TH E ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED THE COMPUTATIONS MADE UNDER PLINTH A REA METHOD AS PER THE RATES DETERMINED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER (R&B) (BUILD INGS), ANDHRA PRADESH, AS PER WHICH THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION WAS ARRIVED A T RS.26.87 LAKHS. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO ACCEPT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE IMPUGNED BUILDING AT RS.26.0 0 LAKHS AND HE ALSO AGREED TO OFFER THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.9.52 LAKHS (26 .00 16.48) PROPORTIONATELY IN THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS, I.E. 200 2-03, 2003-04 AND 2004- 05. 3.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT BOTH THE E STIMATES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, AS ACCORDING TO HIM BOTH THE ESTIMATE S DID NOT DEPICT TRUE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER P ROCEEDED TO DETERMINE THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION ON HIS OWN ON THE BASIS OF THE CONSTRUCTION RATES FOLLOWED BY THE DEPARTMENT VALUATION CELL AND ACCOR DINGLY DETERMINED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS.34.33 LAKHS. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER APPORTIONED THE SAME IN THE RATIO OF 4:4:3 BETWEEN THE ASSESSME NT YEARS 22002-03, ITA NOS 488 27 489 OF 2007-477 OF 07 AND 505 OF 2010 CHAPPIDI SWAMINADHA RAO KAKINADA PAGE 4 OF 16 2003-04 AND 2004-05 AND ASSESSED THE DIFFERENCE THE DIFFERENCE IN THESE THREE YEARS. THE FOLLOWING TABLE SHOWS THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ALL THE THREE YEARS: ASSESSMENT YEAR AMOUNT DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AMOUNT DECLARED IN RETURN OF INCOME DIFFERENCE ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER 2002 - 03 RS.12,48,364 RS.5,95,000 RS.6,53,364 2003-04 RS.12,48,364 RS.6,15,000 RS.6,33,364 2004-05 RS.9,36,273 RS.4,38,000 RS.4,68,273 3.2 BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE FI LED A REVISED VALUATION REPORT, WHEREIN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION HAD BEEN D ETERMINED AT RS.26.31 LAKHS AND PLEADED THAT THE REVISED VALUATION REPORT BE ACCEPTED. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT (A), AFTER MAKING CERTAIN CORRECTIO NS IN THE COMPUTATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DETERMINED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS.29.87 LAKHS AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER TO ADOPT THE SAID FIGURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASCERTAINING THE UND ISCLOSED INCOME FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS. 3.3 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE, SHRI CH. SWAMINADHA RAO IS CONTESTING THIS ISSUE BEFORE US I N ALL THE THREE YEARS. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT A TECHNICALLY QUALIFIED PERSON AND HENCE HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO DETERMINE THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION ON HIS OWN. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IS CONSISTENTLY TAKING T HE VIEW THAT THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX OR THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE NOT TECHN ICALLY QUALIFIED PERSONS TO DETERMINE THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION, SINCE THE VA LUATION INVOLVES COMPLEX CALCULATIONS ON TECHNICAL MATTERS AND IT REQUIRES T ECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE. IN THIS REGARD, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED R EPRESENTATIVE FILED A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.8.2008 PASSED BY THE VISAKHAP ATNAM BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE HANDS OF SMT. KAMISETTY SRI LAKSHMI IN ITA NOS.2/V/2003 AND 3/V/2003, WHEREIN SIMILAR VIEWS HAVE BEEN EXPRE SSED. HOWEVER, THE ITA NOS 488 27 489 OF 2007-477 OF 07 AND 505 OF 2010 CHAPPIDI SWAMINADHA RAO KAKINADA PAGE 5 OF 16 LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DETERMINED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION UNDER PLINT H AREA METHOD AS PER THE RATES COMMUNICATED BY SUPDT. ENGINEER (VALUATIO N CELL) OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT IF T HE SAID COMPUTATION MAY BE ACCEPTED. 3.4 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS ON THIS ISS UE AND ALSO PERUSED THE RECORD. AS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R, THE ASSES SING OFFICER IS NOT A TECHNICALLY QUALIFIED PERSON TO DETERMINE THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND HENCE, IN OUR VIEW, HE SHOULD HAVE OBTAINED REPORT FROM THE VALUATION CELL OF THE DEPARTMENT IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. IN OUR VIEW, THE ESTIMATE OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON HIS OWN CANNOT HAVE LEGAL SANCTION. HENCE THE ADDI TION, IF ANY, MADE BY HIM ON THE BASIS OF HIS OWN ESTIMATE IS LIABLE TO B E DELETED. HOWEVER, BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BEFORE LEAR NED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED VALUATION REPORTS AND AGREED TO OFFER THE DIFFERENCE IN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. AS PER THE REVISED VALUATION REPORT SUBMITTED BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A), THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION WAS ARRIVE D AT RS.26.31 LAKHS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE MODIFY THE ORDER OF LEARNED C IT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASSESS THE DIFFERENCE IN THE C OST OF CONSTRUCTION IN ALL THE THREE YEARS BY ADOPTING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTIO N AS RS.26.31 LAKHS. 4. NOW WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL NUMBERED AS ITA 488/VIZAG/2007 FILED BY SHRI CH. SWAMINADHA RAO FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS TEN GROUNDS, THE Y GIVE RISE TO FOLLOWING ISSUES: A) VALIDITY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT B) ADDITION OF PROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF DIFFERENCE I N COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT RAMACHANDRAPURA M ITA NOS 488 27 489 OF 2007-477 OF 07 AND 505 OF 2010 CHAPPIDI SWAMINADHA RAO KAKINADA PAGE 6 OF 16 C) ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PRONOTES A ND INTERESTS ACCRUED THEREON. 4.1 AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LEARNED AUTHORISED R EPRESENTATIVE DID NOT PRESS THE GROUNDS RELATING TO VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AND HENCE THEY ARE DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. ON A CAREFUL PERU SAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), WE NOTICE THAT THE THEN AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS THE GROUNDS RELATING TO ASSE SSMENT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PRONOTES AND INTEREST ACCRUED THEREON . SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEDED THIS ISSUE BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A), WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PRECLUDED FROM AGITATING THE SAID ISSUE S AGAIN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS RELATI NG TO ASSESSMENT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PRONOTES AND INTEREST ACC RUED THEREON BY TREATING THEM AS INFRUCTUOUS. 4.2 THE ONLY SURVIVING GROUND IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 02-03 RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF DIFFERENCE IN COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF R ESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT RAMACHANDRAPURAM. THIS ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DISPOSED OF BY US IN PARAGRAPH 3 (SUPRA). 5. NOW WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE SHRI CH. SWAMINADHA RAO FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THE FIRST ISSUE RELATE S TO THE ASSESSMENT OF DIFFERENCE IN COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL P ROPERTY LOCATED AT RAMACHANDRAPURAM. THE SAID ISSUE HAS BEEN DISPOSED OF BY US IN PARAGRAPH 3 (SUPRA). THE REMAINING ISSUE RELATES T O THE ASSESSMENT OF INVESTMENT IN PRONOTES AMOUNTING TO RS.8.80 LAKHS A ND INTERESTS ACCRUED THEREON AMOUNTING TO RS.1,65,750/-. AS STATED EARL IER, DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION, COPIES OF PRONOTES WERE FOUND IND ICATING MONEY LENDING ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. THE PEAK AMO UNT OF SUCH PRONOTES RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 WAS WORKED OUT TO RS.8.80 LAKHS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SHRI CH.SWAMINADHA RAO C LAIMED THAT THE ITA NOS 488 27 489 OF 2007-477 OF 07 AND 505 OF 2010 CHAPPIDI SWAMINADHA RAO KAKINADA PAGE 7 OF 16 PRONOTES BELONGED TO HIS WIFE SMT. CH.TRIVENI. WHE N QUESTIONED ABOUT THE SOURCES AVAILABLE WITH SMT. CH.TRIVENI, THE ASSESS EE CLAIMED AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FROM THE FOLLOWING SOURCES: A) AMOUNTS ACCUMULATED OVER THE YEARS FROM OUT OF G IFTS RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE. B) AGENCY COMMISSION INCOME RECEIVED FROM CHIT CO MPANIES. C) INCOME FROM BANK DEPOSITS AND DIVIDENDS RECEIVED FROM CHIT CONTRIBUTIONS. D) LOANS OBTAINED FROM BANKS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENC E IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM OF RECEIPT OF GIFTS DURING MARRIAGE, RECEIPT OF BAN K LOANS, BANK FIXED DEPOSITS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTICED THAT SMT. CH. TRIVENI HAD STATED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY THAT SHE DOES NO T HAVE ANY MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES, BANK DEPOSITS, PRONOTES AND B ANK ACCOUNTS ETC. WHEN THIS STATEMENT OF SMT. CH. TRIVENI WAS CONFRON TED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS STATED THAT SMT. CH. TRIVENI HAD MISTAKENLY STATED SO DUE TO TENSION AND ILL HEALTH AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE DOC UMENTS PRODUCED IN SUPPORT OF RECEIPT OF CHIT AGENCY COMMISSION HAD BE EN FABRICATED BY INSERTING THE NAME OF SMT. CH.TRIVENI ALONG WITH TH E NAME OF SHRI CH. SWAMINADHA RAO. FURTHER THE ENQUIRIES MADE WITH CH IT COMPANIES REVEALED THAT ONLY SHRI CH.SWAMINADHA RAO HAD ACTED AS THEIR AGENT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISMISSED THE CLAIM OF AVAILABILITY OF SOURCES WITH SMT. CH.TRIVENI. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING O FFICER HELD THAT THE PRONOTES ACTUALLY BELONG TO SHRI CH.SWAMINADHA RAO ONLY AND ASSESSED THE PEAK BALANCE OF PRONOTES AMOUNTING TO RS.8.80 LAKHS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ADDED A SUM OF RS.1,65,750/- REPRESENTING INTERESTS THEREON. ITA NOS 488 27 489 OF 2007-477 OF 07 AND 505 OF 2010 CHAPPIDI SWAMINADHA RAO KAKINADA PAGE 8 OF 16 5.1 IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LEAR NED CIT (A) HELD THAT SMT. CH. TRIVENI COULD HAVE RECEIVED GIFTS AT THE T IME OF MARRIAGE AS IT IS A CUSTOMARY PRACTICE PREVAILING IN THAT AREA. ACCORDI NGLY, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ESTIMATED THE AMOUNT OF GIFT THAT COULD HAVE BEEN R ECEIVED BY HER AT RS.25,000/-. THE CLAIM OF RECEIPT OF CHIT AGENCY C OMMISSION WAS REJECTED BY LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER, SMT. CH. TRIVENI COULD FURNISH EVIDENCES OF MAKING CHIT FUND CONTRIB UTIONS. BASED ON THOSE EVIDENCES AND ALSO THE FACE VALUE OF CHIT FUND SCHE MES, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DETERMINED THE AMOUNT OF MATURITY PROCEEDS OF CHIT FUND SCHEMES AS UNDER: S.NO CHIT REFERENCE NO. DATE OF COMMENCEMENT VALUE OF CHIT MARGADARSI CHIT FUNDS (P) LTD 1 LT 51 EK 29 OCTOBER, 1985 RS.10,000 2 LT 67 EK 35 APRIL, 1989 RS.10,000 SRIRAM CHITS (P) LTD 1 CGF 1/20 28-02-1991 RS.15,000 2 CSJ 2219 28-06-1992 RS.25,000 3 CLG 22 31-08-1992 RS.50,000 4 CLG 7417 29-11-1992 RS.30,000 MAYURI CHITS & FINANCE 1 MCST 1/29 AUGUST, 1994 RS.30,000 RS.1,90,000 ACCORDINGLY, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HELD THAT THE MATU RITY VALUE OF THE CHIT CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,90,000/- CAN BE T REATED AS FUNDS AVAILABLE IN THE HANDS OF SMT. CH. TRIVENI. THUS THE LEARNED CIT (A) DETERMINED THE SOURCES AVAILABLE WITH SMT. CH. TRIVENI AS RS.2,15, 000/-(RS.25,000 (+) RS.1,90,000) AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE APPROPRIATE RELIEF IN RESPECT OF PRONOTES AND ALSO INTEREST ACCRUED THEREON. STILL AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THIS ISSUE. ITA NOS 488 27 489 OF 2007-477 OF 07 AND 505 OF 2010 CHAPPIDI SWAMINADHA RAO KAKINADA PAGE 9 OF 16 5.2 WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE. WITH R EGARD TO THE CLAIM OF RECEIPT OF GIFTS AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE OF SMT. CH . TRIVENI, THE LEARNED CIT (A) RESTRICTED THE CLAIM TO RS.25,000/- WITH THE FO LLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 4.3 AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENT ATIVE AND ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE, THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS MADE AND DECISIONS TAKEN : (I) NO DOUBT, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E APPELLANT HAD DONE PRECIOUS LITTLE TO PRODUCE SATIS FACTORY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF HAVING RECEIVED CASH GIFTS AT THE TIME OF HER MARRIAGE IN THE YEAR 1985, EXCEP T FURNISHING A LIST OF 8 NAMES PURPORTED TO BE DONORS OF THE CASH GIFTS. HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CAST SE RIOUS DOUBT ON SUCH CLAIM AND HAD REFUSED TO GIVE ANY CREDIT FO R THE CASH GIFTS RECEIVED DURING HER MARRIAGE ON THE REASONING THAT SUCH CLAIMS ARE NOT VERIFIABLE. NOTWITHSTANDING SUCH FAC T, IT MAY BE STATED THAT IT IS COMMON TO RECEIVE CASH AND OTHER MOVABLE GIFTS DURING WEDDING EVENTS DEPENDING UPON THE SOCI AL AND ECON ECONOMIC STATUS OF A BRIDE OR BRIDEGROOM. THER EFORE, EVEN WITHOUT ANY SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE EVIDEN CE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF HAVING RECEIVED THE CASH GI FTS DURING HER MARRIAGE WHICH TOOK PLACE LONG AGO IN THE YEAR 1985, CREDIT TO SOME EXTENT IS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN. BUT THE CLAIM OF HAVING RECEIVED CASH GIFTS ALONE TO THE EXTENT OF R S.1,00,000 APPEARS TO BE EXAGGERATED, MORE SO, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE STATU S OF THE APPELLANT, IT WOULD BE REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT TH E CASH GIFTS TO THE EXTENT OF AT LEAST RS.25,000/- IF NOT MORE, MIGHT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED. IN VIEW OF SUCH CUSTOMARY PRACT ICE OF RECEIVING CASH GIFTS AND GIFTS IN KIND, DURING WEDD ING OCCASIONS, THE APPELLANTS WIFE SMT. CHAPPIDI TRIVE NI COULD BE GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF DOUBT AND, ACCORDINGLY, RECKON ED TO HAVE RECEIVED CASH GIFTS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.25,000/-. IT IS TO BE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROD UCE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF RECEIPT OF GIFTS AT THE TIM E OF MARRIAGE. BASED ON THE CUSTOM PREVAILING IN THAT AREA, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ESTIMATED THE AMOUNT OF GIFT THAT COULD HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY SMT . CH. TRIVENI AT RS.25,000/-. BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRO DUCE ANY MATERIAL WHICH ITA NOS 488 27 489 OF 2007-477 OF 07 AND 505 OF 2010 CHAPPIDI SWAMINADHA RAO KAKINADA PAGE 10 OF 16 WOULD COMPEL US TO INTERFERE WITH THE SAID ESTIMATE . HENCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISION OF LEARNE D CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD. 5.3 WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF RECEIPT OF AGENCY C OMMISSION BY SMT. CH.TRIVENI FROM CHIT FUND COMPANIES, BOTH THE TAX A UTHORITIES HAVE GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED IN THAT REGARD HAVE BEEN FABRICATED. BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODU CE ANY OTHER EVIDENCE TO CONTRADICT THE FINDINGS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES. AC CORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. 5.4 THOUGH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT SMT. CH. TRIVE NI HAD OBTAINED LOAN FROM BANKS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING MONEY LENDIN G ACTIVITIES, NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SAID CLAIM WAS PRODUCED BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE COULD FILE ONLY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF CHIT CONTRIBUTIONS AND THE FACE VALUE OF SUCH CHIT GROUP S WERE FOUND TO BE RS.1,90,000/-. ACCORDINGLY THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS HELD THAT THE SUM OF RS.1,90,000/- COULD BE TREATED AS FUNDS AVAILABLE I N THE HANDS OF SMT. CH. TRIVENI. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS FURTHER HELD THAT THERE WAS NO SCOPE FOR UTILIZING THESE MATURITY PROCEEDS IN MONEY LENDING ACTIVITIES FOR THE REASON THAT SMT. CH.TRIVENI HAS PARTICIPATED IN THESE CHIT GROUPS AT VARIOUS POINTS OF TIME AND HENCE SHE WAS UNDER OBLIGATION TO PAY M ONTHLY CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OUT OF THE MATURITY PROCEEDS. ON A CAREFUL CON SIDERATION OF REASONING GIVEN BY LEARNED CIT(A), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT TH E FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ANALYSED THE FACTS IN A PROPER PERSPE CTIVE AND HAS TAKEN A REASONABLE VIEW. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FI ND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH HIS DECISION ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDI NGLY WE UPHOLD THE DECISION OF LEARNED CIT(A) IN DETERMINING THE SOURCES AVAILA BLE WITH SMT. CH.TRIVENI AT RS.2,15,000/-. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALREADY D IRECTED THE TO ASSESSING OFFICER TO MODIFY THE ADDITION MADE ON PRONOTES AND INTEREST ACCRUED THEREON. WE UPHOLD THE SAID DIRECTION ALSO. ITA NOS 488 27 489 OF 2007-477 OF 07 AND 505 OF 2010 CHAPPIDI SWAMINADHA RAO KAKINADA PAGE 11 OF 16 6. NOW WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL FILED BY SHR I CH.SWAMINADHA RAO FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE ASSESSEE IS CONTESTIN G ON THE FOLLOWING ISSUES: (A) VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. (B) ADDITION OF DIFFERENCE IN COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE LOCATED AT RAMACHANDRAPURAM. (C) ADDITION OF CASH CREDIT OF RS.15,000/- AND INT EREST THEREON. (D) ADDITION OF INVESTMENT IN CHIT FUNDS IN THE NA ME OF SPOUSE- RS.694335/-. (E) ADDITION OF CHIT DIVIDEND OF RS.1,23,165/- (F) CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A AND 2 34B. 6.1 THE REVENUE HAS ALSO FILED APPEAL FOR THIS YE AR CONTESTING THE DECISION OF LEARNED CIT(A) IN GRANTING RELIEF TO THE EXTENT OF RS.9,20,000/-. 7. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED A.R DID NOT PRESS THE GROUNDS RELATING TO THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESS MENT. ACCORDINGLY THE SAID GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. WE NOTICE FROM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE THEN REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS THE GROUNDS RELATING TO THE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT OF RS.15,000/- AND INTEREST THERE ON AND ALSO THE GROUND RELATING TO THE ASSESS MENT OF CHIT DIVIDEND OF RS.1,23,165/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEDED THE SE TWO ISSUES BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSE E IS PRECLUDED FROM AGITATING THEM AGAIN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ACCORDING LY WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS RELATING TO THESE TWO ISSUES BY TREATING TH EM AS INFRUCTUOUS. THE GROUNDS RELATING TO CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECT ION 234A/234B HAVE NO MERIT, SINCE THE CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER THOSE S ECTIONS IS MANDATORY AND CONSEQUENTIAL AND HENCE WE DISMISS THESE GROUNDS AL SO. ITA NOS 488 27 489 OF 2007-477 OF 07 AND 505 OF 2010 CHAPPIDI SWAMINADHA RAO KAKINADA PAGE 12 OF 16 7.1 THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT OF DIF FERENCE IN COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT RAM ACHANDRAPURAM HAS BEEN DISPOSED OF BY US IN PARAGRAPH 3 (SUPRA). NOW WE A RE LEFT WITH THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF RS.6,94,335/- RELATING TO THE INVESTMEN T IN CHIT FUND SCHEMES IN THE NAME OF SPOUSE OF SHRI SWAMINADHA RAO. THE FAC TS RELATING TO THIS ISSUE IS NARRATED AS UNDER BY LEARNED CIT(A). 6.1 THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF RECOVERY SURVEY OPERATION CONDUCTED IN TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, SHRI CHAPPIDI SWAMINADHA RAO ON 30-08 -2005, IT WAS FOUND THAT A NUMBER OF SUBSCRIPTIONS WITH M/S. SRIRAM CHITS PVT. LTD., IN THE NAME OF SMT. CHAPPIDI TRIVE NI, WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MADE. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WORKED OUT IN A TABULAR FORM THE DETAILS OF THE VARIOUS SUBSCRIPTIONS MADE DURING THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING YEAR WHICH AGGREGATED TO A SUM OF RS.6,94,335/-. IN THE INDIVIDUAL RETURN OF SMT. CHAP PIDI TRIVENI, SUCH INVESTMENTS HAD BEEN SHOWN TO THE TUNE OF RS.4 ,80,000/- ONLY, THEREBY UNDER-DISCLOSING THE SUBSCRIPTIONS MA DE. AS SMT. CHAPPIDI TRIVENI HAD ADMITTED IN HER SWORN STATEMEN T TAKEN DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION TO THE EFFECT THAT SHE DID NOT HAVE THE SOURCES OF INCOME FOR MAKING THE SUBSC RIPTIONS TO THE CHITS AND THAT THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN HER NAME ACTUALLY BELONGED TO HER HUSBAND SHRI CHAPPIDI SWAMINADHA RA O, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ON NOT RECEIVING ANY EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE SOURCES OF INVESTMENT IN SUC H CHIT CONTRIBUTIONS IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE, TREATED AND ADDED AGGREGATE OF THE SUBSCRIPTIONS OF RS.6,94,335/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION SHOULD BE REDUCED BY RS.2,64,135/-. IN SU PPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED MATURIT Y AMOUNT FROM CERTAIN CHIT FUND SCHEME AND ALSO MADE FURTHER DEPOSITS IN THE MONTH OF APRIL, 2004 AND THUS A NET CASH BALANCE OF RS.2,64,135/- W AS AVAILABLE WITH HIM. HOWEVER THE LEARNED CIT(A) REJECTED THE SAID PLEA W ITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: ITA NOS 488 27 489 OF 2007-477 OF 07 AND 505 OF 2010 CHAPPIDI SWAMINADHA RAO KAKINADA PAGE 13 OF 16 6.3 AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENT ATIVE AND ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE, IT MAY BE STATED THAT THE MATURITY/AUCTION PROCEEDS OF THE CHIT WITH M/S SRIRAM CHITS PVT. LTD., KAKINADA BRANCH IS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN CREDITED IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT ON 16-0 4-2004, 16 DAYS AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING PERIOD. SIMILARLY, AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,90,400 STANDS DEBITED O 28-04- 2004, 28 DAYS AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE RELEVANT ACCO UNT PERIOD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN A TABULAR FORM HAS INDICAT ED THE DETAILS OF CONTRIBUTIONS MADE TOWARDS 34 CHIT SUBSC RIPTIONS DURING THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD ENDED 31-03-2004 WHICH WORKED OUT TO RS.6,94,335/-. SINCE THE INVESTMENTS REFERRE D TO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE MADE AS ON 31-03-2004, LONG BEFORE THE RECEIPT OF THE MATURITY PROCEEDS, IT IS DIFFICULT TO APPRECIATE THAT A SUM OF RS.4,55 ,000 RECEIVED AS A MATURITY/AUCTION VALUE OF THE EARLIER CHIT SUB SCRIPTION WENT TO FINANCE THE CHIT SUBSCRIPTIONS MADE IN THE EARLI ER PERIOD ENDED 31-03-2004. THE EXPLANATION TENDERED BY THE L EARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE LACKS LOGIC AND REASON AN D APPEARS TO BE A DESPERATE AND VAIN ATTEMPT FOR SECURING SOM E RELIEF ON ISSUE AT ANY COST. THE EXPLANATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT BEING ABSOLUTELY DEVOID OF ANY MERIT, IS LIABLE TO BE REJECTED, WHICH IS, HEREBY, REJECTED. ACCORDINGLY, THE TREATM ENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ISSUE WARRANTS NO INTE RFERENCE. THUS IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,64,135/- OUT OF THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.6, 94,335/-. HOWEVER THE SAID CLAIM HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) FOR THE REASON THAT THE TRANSACTIONS, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE RELIEF IS B EING SOUGHT, HAD TAKEN PLACE AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR. BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FIND ANY MATERIAL TO CONTRADICT THE FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT( A). ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 8. NOW WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IN THE CASE OF SHRI CH. SWA MINADHA RAO. THE REVENUE IS CONTESTING THE RELIEF OF RS.9,20,000/- G IVEN BY LEARNED CIT(A) OUT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.15,34,524/- AND RS.10,52, 965/- RELATING TO THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES MADE IN THE NAME OF THE ITA NOS 488 27 489 OF 2007-477 OF 07 AND 505 OF 2010 CHAPPIDI SWAMINADHA RAO KAKINADA PAGE 14 OF 16 DAUGHTER AND WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE RESPECTIVELY. TH E FACTS RELATING TO THE SAID ADDITION ARE STATED IN BRIEF. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COLLECTED THE DETAILS OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES ACQUIRED BY THE FAMILY MEMB ERS OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2004-05 FROM THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE. THE AGGREGATE VALUE OF IMMOV ABLE PROPERTIES PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESS EE WAS RS.13,19,960/- AND THE AGGREGATE VALUE OF PROPERTIES PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.10,52,965/-. HAVING NOTICED TH AT THE DAUGHTER AND WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE DO NOT HAVE SOURCES FOR MAKING THE IMPUGNED INVESTMENTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED BOTH THE A MOUNTS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED ABOUT THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS WITH HIM FROM OUT OF MONEY LE NDING TRANSACTIONS. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT ONLY DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATIONS, THE MONEY LENDING TRANSACTIONS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE CAM E TO THE NOTICE OF THE DEPARTMENT. BASED ON THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS OF EARLIER YEARS IN RESPECT O F MONEY LENDING TRANSACTIONS, THE ASSESSEE ESTABLISHED BEFORE LEARN ED CIT(A) THAT A SUM OF RS.9,20,000/- (RS.51,000/- (+) RS.8,69,000/-) COULD BE TREATED AS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY SOUGHT FOR TELESC OPING OF THE SAME AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS CONVINCED WITH THE SAID PLEA AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO GIVE RELIEF OF RS.9,20,000/- AFTER MAKING DUE VERIFICATION. THE O BSERVATIONS MADE BY LEARNED CIT(A) IN THIS CONNECTION ARE EXTRACTED BEL OW: (I) ALTHOUGH NO EXPLANATION ABOUT ANY FUNDS AVAILA BLE AT HAND BY WAY OF REPAID LOANS FROM CERTAIN PARTIES FO R SATISFYING THE SOURCES OF INVESTMENT IN THE IMMOVAB LE PROPERTIES HAD BEEN TENDERED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, YET IT CAN BE SAID THAT THERE IS CONSI DERABLE FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE R EPAID LOANS AVAILABLE AT HAND OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN CR EDIT AGAINST THE QUANTUM OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN TH E IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES. MORE SO, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE RECORDED DATES ON WHICH THE REPAID LOANS HAVE B EEN ITA NOS 488 27 489 OF 2007-477 OF 07 AND 505 OF 2010 CHAPPIDI SWAMINADHA RAO KAKINADA PAGE 15 OF 16 RECEIVED PRECEDE THE DATES ON WHICH THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN PURCHASED, SO AS TO EXPLAIN TH E SOURCES OF INVESTMENTS TO THESE EXTENT. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIAT E THAT THE NECESSARY CREDIT SHOULD BE GIVEN AGAINST THE FIGURE S OF THE INVESTMENTS MADE FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCES AS DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD DO WELL TO VERIFY THE FIGURES ONCE AGAIN WITH REFERENCE TO THE EXACT DATES ON WHICH THE SPECIFIC LOAN AMOUNTS WERE REPAI D TO THE APPELLANT, AS ALSO THE DATES OF PURCHASE OF IND IVIDUAL PROPERTIES MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, BEFOR E GIVING THE NECESSARY CREDIT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ONLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE TELESCOPING BENEFIT AFTER MAKING DUE VERIFICATION. THUS HE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY DIRECT RELIEF. IF THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE PR ONOTES HAS BEEN ASSESSED IN THE EARLIER YEARS, THE REPAYMENTS RECEIVED FROM SUCH PRONOTES SHOULD BE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING INVESTMENTS. HENCE THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE SAID DIRECTION OF LEARNED CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD HIS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. 9. NOW WE ARE LEFT WITH THE APPEAL FILED BY SMT . CH. TRIVENI. WE HAVE ALREADY STATED THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MA DE IN THE HANDS OF SMT. CH. TRIVENI ALSO ON PROTECTIVE BASIS IN THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2004-05. (A) INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES IN THE NAM E OF WIFE AND DAUGHTER OF SHRI CH. SWAMINADHA RAO RS.23,72,925/ -. (B) INVESTMENT IN CHIT FUND SCHEMES RS.6,94,335/ - (C) ADDITION OF CHIT FUND DIVIDENDS RS.1,23,165 /-. ALL THESE THREE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY US IN THE HANDS OF SHRI CH.SWAMINADHA RAO, SUBJECT TO A RELIEF OF RS.9,20,0 00/- WHICH IS TO BE ALLOWED AFTER MAKING NECESSARY VERIFICATION. HENCE , BY OPERATION OF LAW, THE PROTECTIVE ADDITIONS WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE DELE TED. ACCORDINGLY, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NOS 488 27 489 OF 2007-477 OF 07 AND 505 OF 2010 CHAPPIDI SWAMINADHA RAO KAKINADA PAGE 16 OF 16 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE APPEAL OF SMT. CH. TRIVENI ARE DISMISSED. THE THREE APPEALS FILED BY SHRI CH. SWAMINADHA RAO ARE TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPO SES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH APRIL, 2011. SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (B R BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PVV/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM, DATE:07-04-2011 COPY TO 1 SRI CHAPPIDI SWAMINADHARAO, PLOT NO.100, POSTAL C OLONY, KAKINADA 2 SMT. CH.TRIVENI, W/O CH.SWAMINADHA RAO, FLAT NO.1 00, POSTAL COLONY, KAKINADA 3 THE ITO WARD-2, KAKINADA 4 5 THE CIT RAJAHMUNDRY THE CIT(A), RAJAHMUNDRY 6 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 7 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM