Sri.K.Govindapillai, Kollam V. DCIT, Kollam

ITA 57/COCH/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86399 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LATHA V KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: T M SREEDHARAN NAIR LD SR
• Section: 153A; 132

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 57 TO 63/COCH/2014 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) AND SHRI CHANDRA PO OJARI (AM) I.T.A NO. 57 TO 63/COCH/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2009-10) SHRI K GOVINDA PILLAI VS DY.CIT, CENT.CIR SANTHI BHAVAN KOLLAM THAZHAMEL, ANCHAL KOLLAM PAN : ADCPP1879K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI T.M. SREEDHARAN NAIR, LD.SR COUNSEL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI LATHA V KUMAR DATE OF HEARING : 09-12-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09-01-2015 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A)-III, KOCHI ALL DATED 26-11-201 2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2009-10. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARIS E FOR CONSIDERATION IN ALL THESE APPEALS, THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2 ITA NO. 57 TO 63/COCH/2014 2. THE FIRST ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS DISA LLOWANCE OF OFFICE EXPENSES. 3. SHRI T.M. SRIDHARAN, THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTRICTED THE OFFICE EXPENSES TO 40% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM DOCUMENT WRITING. ACCOR DING TO THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE IS A LICENSED DOCUMENT WRITER . THE ASSESSEE HAS TO MAINTAIN STAFF ASSISTANTS TO WRITE THE DOCUMENT APA RT FROM INCURRING EXPENDITURE IN ELECTRICITY CHARGES, PRINTING OF STA TIONERY, TRAVELLING ETC. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PAID BONUS TO EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED BY HIM. ACCORDING TO THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL, SINCE THE PAYMENTS MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS EXPENDITURE IS NOT IN DISPUTE, THE SAME HAS TO BE ALLOWED, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTI NG THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO 40% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SMT. LATHA V KUMAR, THE LD.DR S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A DOCUMENT WRITER AND STAMP VENDOR IN A NCHAL TOWN. A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED U/S 132 OF THE ACT AT THE RESI DENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND SIMULTANEOUSLY SURVEY WAS ALSO CONDUCT ED AT THE OFFICE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AT MARKET JUNCTION, ANCHAL . ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, SEVERAL INCRIMINATING MATERIALS WERE FOUND D URING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SURVEY OPERATIONS. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING ANY BOOKS 3 ITA NO. 57 TO 63/COCH/2014 OF ACCOUNT. BEFORE THE SEARCH, ACCORDING TO THE LD .DR THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 DI SCLOSING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.91,010. HOWEVER, AFTER THE SEARCH, CONSEQUEN T TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153A THE ASSESSEE DECLARED A TOTAL INCOME OF RS .1,32,120 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, T HE ASSESSEE CLAIMED NEARLY 60% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS AS EXPENSES. IN T HE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIALS, ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, THE ASSESSING OF FICER RESTRICTED THE EXPENSES AT 40% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS. THE LD.DR F URTHER SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS SUPPORTING THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED TO BE IN CURRED, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTED LY, THE ASSESSEE ENGAGED HIMSELF IN DRAFTING DOCUMENTS AND SALE OF S TAMPS (BOTH JUDICIAL AND NON JUDICIAL). THE ASSESSEE IS RECEIVING FEES FOR DRAFTING THE DOCUMENTS AND ALSO RECEIVING COMMISSION ON SALE OF STAMPS. NO DOUBT, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO EMPLOYEE SOME PERSONNEL FOR CAR RYING OUT HIS PROFESSIONAL DUTIES. HOWEVER, CLAIMING 60% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS AS EXPENDITURE WITHOUT FURNISHING ANY DETAILS MAY NOT BE CORRECT. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS EXPECTED TO MAINTAIN RECORDS FOR WRITING THE DOCUMENTS AND SALE OF STAMP PAPERS. 4 ITA NO. 57 TO 63/COCH/2014 THEREFORE, THE TOTAL RECEIPT ON DOCUMENT WRITING AN D SALE OF STAMP PAPERS COULD BE ASCERTAINED ONLY IF THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTA INING PROPER RECORDS. THOUGH THE COMMISSION ON SALE OF STAMPS CAN BE ASCE RTAINED FROM THE GOVERNMENT / GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY FROM WHOM THE ASSE SSEE BOUGHT STAMP PAPERS, BUT THE FEES FOR WRITING DOCUMENTS CA N ONLY BE ASCERTAINED FROM THE MATERIAL / DOCUMENTS ARE MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY FOR THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE A SSESSEE HAS TO PRODUCE BOOKS AND VOUCHERS. WITHOUT MAINTAINING ANY BOOKS OR RECORD, THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING 60% AS EXPENDITURE. THIS TRIB UNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, INFLATION OF EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE RULED OUT. THER EFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY RESTRICTED THE EXPENDITURE TO 4 0% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE SAME. THEREFO RE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHOR ITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APP EALS. 6. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO OPEN ING CASH BALANCE. 7. SHRI T.M. SRIDHARAN, THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DETAILED CASH FLOW STATEMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 3-04, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN A SUM OF RS.5 LAKHS AS OPENING CASH BALAN CE INCLUDING CASH 5 ITA NO. 57 TO 63/COCH/2014 BALANCE OF RS.66,369. ACCORDING TO THE LD.SENIOR C OUNSEL, THE EFFECTIVE CASH BALANCE WAS RS.4,33,655. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALS O RECEIVED AGRICULTURAL INCOME APART FROM DOCUMENT WRITING. A CCORDING TO THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL, THE TOTAL PROFESSIONAL AND AGRICULTURAL IN COME FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDING 31-03-2002 WAS RS.1.5 LAKHS. THE BALANCE RS .2.83 LAKHS WAS FROM ACCUMULATED SAVINGS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WI FE. REFERRING TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE OPENING CASH BALANCE AND WORKED OUT A DEFICIENCY OF RS.3,51,450. ACCORDING TO THE LD.SEN IOR COUNSEL, THE INVESTMENT AND AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS WOULD SHOW THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD A REASONABLE INCOME FROM DOCUMENT WRITING, STAMP VEND ING, AGRICULTURAL AND RENTAL INCOME. THE LD. SENIOR COUNSEL FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES WIFE ALSO HAD RENTAL INCOME AND AGRICULT URAL INCOME. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED I N MAKING ADDITION OF RS.3,51,450. 8. ON THE CONTRARY, SMT. LATHA V KUMAR, THE LD.DR S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED RS.5 LAKHS AS OPENING CASH B ALANCE IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE OPENING CASH BALANCE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASS ESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED AN AMOUNT OF RS.66,369 IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AS CASH AVAILABLE IN 6 ITA NO. 57 TO 63/COCH/2014 HAND. THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD HAV E KEPT RS.1 LAKH IN HAND. ACCORDINGLY, HE RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE A T RS. 3,33,631. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSE SSEE CLAIMED RS.5 LAKHS AS OPENING CASH BALANCE IN THE CASH FLOW STAT EMENT FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF CLAIMS THA T THIS INCLUDES AN AMOUNT OF RS.66,369 IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THOUGH TH E ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT A SUM OF RS.2.83 LAKHS WAS FROM ACCUMULATED SA VINGS, NO MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S NO ACCUMULATED SAVINGS. THE ASSESSEE BEING A STAMP VENDOR HAS TO PURCHASE THE STAMPS FROM THE STATE GOVERNMENT OR FROM THE TREASURY MAIN TAINED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT. THEREFORE, HE HAS TO NATURALLY MAINTAI N BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT THE ASSESSEE, EVEN THOUGH ENGAG ES IN PURCHASE AND SALE OF STAMPS, DID NOT MAINTAIN ANY PROPER BOOKS O F ACCOUNT. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE OPENING CASH BALANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5 LAKHS MAY NOT BE JUST IFIED. THE CIT(A), HOWEVER, HAS ACCEPTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE TO T HE EXTENT OF RS.1 LAKHS AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF R S.3,33,631. THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 7 ITA NO. 57 TO 63/COCH/2014 10. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO AGR ICULTURAL INCOME. 11. SHRI T.M. SRIDHARAN, THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL SUBM ITTED THAT NO MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE AG RICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT. ACCORDING TO THE LD.SE NIOR COUNSEL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E AND HELD THAT THE THEORY OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS ONLY WITH AN INTEN TION TO INCREASE THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH OR EXPLAINING THE INVESTMENT. ACCORDING TO THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INC OME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,53,251 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THE A SSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO GIVE CREDIT FOR THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME S HOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 12. ON THE CONTRARY, SMT. LATHA V KUMAR, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT DISCLOSING ANY INCOME FROM AGRICULT URAL ACTIVITY. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND STANDS IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE, THEREFORE, THE AGRI CULTURAL INCOME WAS NOT INCLUDED IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. WHEN THE ASSESSE E CLAIMS THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME BELONGS TO HIS WIFE IT CANNOT B E INCLUDED IN HIS TOTAL INCOME AND THAT HE CANNOT TAKE ANY CREDIT FOR THE A GRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED BY HIS WIFE. THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH 8 ITA NO. 57 TO 63/COCH/2014 OPERATION SHOWS THE AGRICULTURAL RECEIPT AND NOT IN COME. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS FOR T HE FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 AND 2004-05. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE ANY DETAI LS WITH REGARD TO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON. REFERRING TO T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY WAS COMMENCED ONLY IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSE SSEE CLAIMS THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 HE DISCLOSED AGRICULTURAL I NCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,53,245. BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CLAIMS THAT THIS WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT I T WAS DISCLOSED ONLY IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT. THOUGH NO DETAILS WAS FUR NISHED FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HI MSELF SAYS THAT THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY WAS COMMENCED DURING THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2005-06. IT IS NOT KNOWN HOW THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS ACQUI RED BY THE ASSESSEES WIFE. IF THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE AGRICULTURAL L AND BY INVESTING HIS OWN FUNDS IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE, THEN THE INCOME EARN ED FROM SUCH AGRICULTURAL LAND CAN ALSO BE CLAIMED AS PART OF HI S TOTAL INCOME. BUT IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE INVESTED FUNDS FOR PURCHASING LAND IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LAND BELONGS TO 9 ITA NO. 57 TO 63/COCH/2014 HIS WIFE. THEREFORE, THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME, IF A NY, MAY BE CONSIDERED ONLY IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEES WIFE AND NOT IN THE HAND S OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEES WIFE CAN ALSO BE CONSIDERED FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN THE JOINT NAME OF ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE DURING THE RESPECTIVE FINANCIAL YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. TH E FACT REMAINS IS THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT CLAIM THAT ANY AGRICULTURAL LAND STANDS IN HIS NAME. THEREFORE, THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SAID TO BE CLAIM ED CANNOT BE PART OF HIS TOTAL INCOME AND SO IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR OPE NING CASH BALANCE. AT THE BEST, AS OBSERVED EARLIER, IT CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR MAKING JOINT INVESTMENT IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE AND HIMSELF, THE REFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AU THORITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 14. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO HOU SEHOLD EXPENSES. 15. ACCORDING TO THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL, THE ASSESSE E ESTIMATED THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT RS.1 LAKHS IN THE CASH FLOW S TATEMENT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE ADMIT TED THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT RS. 10,000 PER MONTH. ACCORDING TO THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED ONLY RS.10,000 DURING THE COU RSE OF STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4), THEREFORE, THE ESTIMATION OF H OUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT RS.2 LAKHS IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 10 ITA NO. 57 TO 63/COCH/2014 16. ON THE CONTRARY, SMT. LATHA V KUMAR, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES SON IS STUDYING IN ENGINEERING COLLEGE. HE ADMITTED THAT HE HAD PAID RS.2 LAKHS TOWARDS CAPITATION FEE FOR ADMI SSION. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO PAYING TUITION FEES AND MEETING OTHER EXPENSES FOR MAINTAINING FAMILY. ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4), THE AVERAGE EXPENDITURE OF THE ASSESSEE COMES TO RS.2 LAKHS PER ANNUM. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. NO DOUBT , WHILE EXAMINING THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT HIS MONTHLY EXPENDITURE IS R S.10,000 ONLY. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID CAPITATION F EE FOR HIS SON FOR THE ENGINEERING ADMISSION. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO CONTIN UOUSLY PAYING FEES FOR HIS SON AND INCURRING OTHER EXPENDITURE. TAKING IN TO CONSIDERATION ALL THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ADMITTED IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED US 132(4) OF THE ACT, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED PINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY ESTIMATED THE HOU SEHOLD EXPENSES AT RS.2 LAKHS PER ANNUM. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT F IND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY; THE SAME IS CONFIRMED . 11 ITA NO. 57 TO 63/COCH/2014 18. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, THE ASSESEE HA S TAKEN ONE MORE GROUND WITH REGARD TO OTTUPAL. 19. SHRI T.M. SREEDHRAN, THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL SUBM ITTED THAT OTTUPAL IS A BY-PRODUCT WHICH WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. ACCORDING TO THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL, OTTUPAL IS ONE OF THE BY PRODUCTS, WHICH CAN BE ASCERTAINED FROM THE SEIZED RECORDS. WE HEARD SMT. LATHA V KUMAR, THE LD.DR ALSO. THE ISSUE REGARDING OTTUPAL IS NOT ARI SING OUT OF THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED THIS GROUND BEFORE THE CIT(A) ALSO. SINCE THE LOWER AUT HORITY HAS NOT CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONS IDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT RAISE THIS ISSUE BEFORE THIS TRIBUN AL FOR THE FIRST TIME. THIS TRIBUNAL CAN ENTERTAIN AN APPEAL ONLY ON THE FACTS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ADMITTEDLY, THE FACTS RELATI NG TO OTTUPAL IS NOT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED AN Y ISSUE BEFORE THE CIT(A). THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL CANNOT ENTERTAIN THE ISSUE FOR THE FIRST TIME AT THE SECOND APPEAL STAGE. 20. THE NEXT ISSUE ARISES FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06 FOR CONSIDERATION IS ADDITION OF RS.12 LAKHS FROM SHRI THOMAS, AN NRI . 12 ITA NO. 57 TO 63/COCH/2014 21. SHRI T.M. SRIDHARAN, THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN A SUM OF RS.1 0 LAKHS AS LOAN RECEIVED FROM SHRI THOMAS IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMEN T. ACCORDING TO THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED CASH FROM THE NRE ACCOUNT OF SHRI THOMAS. THE ASSESSEE UTILIZED THE SUM FOR PUR CHASE OF PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, MADE THE ADDITION. THE CIT(A), HOWEVER, DELETED THE ADDITION ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5 LAK HS AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.7 LAKHS. ACCORDING TO THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL, SINCE THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM SHRI THOMAS, A N ON RESIDENT INDIAN, THE ADDITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 22. ON THE CONTRARY, SMT. LATHA V KUMAR, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE PURCHASED TEAK PLANTATION FOR RS.30 LAKHS ALONGWITH SHRI THOMAS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT RS.50 LAKHS WAS INVESTED BY HIM AND TH E BALANCES.50 LAKHS WAS PAID BY MR. THOMAS DIRECTLY FROM HIS NRE ACCOUN T MAINTAINED WITH STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ANCHAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE CASH WITHDREW FROM NRE ACCOUNT ON 29-03-2005 WA S RS.20 LAKHS. THE CIT(A) HAVING FOUND THAT A SUM OF RS.5 LAKHS WA S RECEIVED FROM NRE ACCOUNT, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS .7 LAKHS. 13 ITA NO. 57 TO 63/COCH/2014 23. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE CIT( A) FOUND THAT A SUM OF RS.5 LAKHS WAS TRANSFERRED FROM THE NRE ACCOUNT OF SHRI THOMAS TO THE VENDOR OF THE TEAK PLANTATION. THEREFORE, THE CIT( A) ACCEPTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 5 LAKHS. IN RESPECT OF THE REMAINING SUM OF RS.7 LAKHS, THOUGH THE ASSESSE E CLAIMS THAT MR. THOMAS HAS WITHDRAWN RS.20 LAKHS FROM HIS NRE ACCOU NT MAINTAINED WITH STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ANCHAL, NO MATERIAL IS AV AILABLE ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK WAS PAID TO THE VENDOR OF THE PROPERTY. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.7 LAKHS. IN THE CASE OF CASH CREDITS, IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUIN ENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND THE IDENTIT Y OF THE PARTIES. IN THIS CASE, THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION TO THE EXT ENT OF RS.7 LAKHS WAS NOT PROVED. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL, IS OF THE CO NSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. ACCORDI NGLY, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HEN CE, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 24. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE ASSESSEE H AS RAISED A GROUND WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS.2 LAKHS AS UNE XPLAINED IN ADDITION TO COMMON GROUNDS RAISED FOR EARLIER YEARS. 14 ITA NO. 57 TO 63/COCH/2014 25. SHRI TM SRIDHARAN, THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF PRO PERTY WITH MR. JOSEPH AND GAVE ADVANCE OF RS20 LAKHS. WHILE EXPLAINING T HE SOURCE FOR ADVANCE OF RS.20 LAKHS, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE AMOUN T RECEIVED FROM SHRI THOMAS WAS USED FOR MAKING THE ADVANCE, THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT SHOWN IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DIS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT DIRECT NEXUS FOR WITHDR AWAL OF THE MONEY FROM NRE ACCOUNT OF SHRI THOMAS WAS NOT ESTABLISHED. AC CORDING TO THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL, THE PROPERTY ITSELF WAS PURCHASE D BY SHRI THOMAS AND IT WAS REGISTERED IN HIS NAME ONLY. THE LD.SENIOR COU NSEL SUBMITTED THAT RS.20 LAKHS WAS WITHDRAWN FROM NRE ACCOUNT OF SHRI THOMAS, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. 26. ON THE CONTRARY, SMT. LATHA V KUMAR, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF EXAMINATION U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 20 LAKHS WAS PAID I N CASH AND THAT THE SOURCE FOR MAKING THE ADVANCE IS HIS OWN EARNING AP ART FROM RECEIPT OF RS.2 LAKHS FROM HIS SON. REFERRING TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN FROM NRE ACCOUNT OF SHRI THOMA S, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE NRE ACCOUNT DOES NOT SHOW ANY WI THDRAWAL OF RS.20 LAKHS. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, SHRI THOMS WITHDREW THE AMOUNTS RANGING FROM RS.50,000 TO RS.4 LAKHS ON REGULAR INTERVALS. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF 15 ITA NO. 57 TO 63/COCH/2014 THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN FROM NRE ACC OUNT OF SHRI TOMAS WAS USED FOR GIVING ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERT Y IS NOT CORRECT. AS PER THE LD.DR, THE TOTAL WITHDRAWAL FROM THE NRE AC COUNT AS ON 21-02- 2006 WAS RS.9,20,000. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION. 27. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE CIT( A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE FOR RS.18 LAKHS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF ADMITTED IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT THERE WA S WITHDRAWAL OF RS.18 LAKHS FROM THE NRE ACCOUNT OF SHRI THOMAS. THEREFO RE, THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.18 LAKHS. IN THE SWORN STATEMENT, THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT HE RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.2 LAKHS FROM HIS SON. THIS STATEMENT WAS NOT CO NSIDERED BY THE CIT(A). A STATEMENT RECORDED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERAT ION U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT ALSO FORMS PART OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL. THEREF ORE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS IN THE STATEMENT U/S 132(4) THAT HE RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.2 LAKHS, ACCORDING TO THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL IT HAS TO BE TRE ATED AS SUCH AS NO CONTRARY EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO CONTRARY MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A ) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS.2 LAKHS. THIS TRIBUNAL I S OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION 16 ITA NO. 57 TO 63/COCH/2014 THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.2 LAKHS SUSTAINED BY THE CI T(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN VIEW OF THE ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.28 IN THE STATEME NT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT FROM THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(A) IS MODIFIED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO D ELETE THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS.20 LAKHS. 28. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 006-07 RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS.65,000 FOUND IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. 29. SHRI T.M. SREEDHARAN, THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RS.65,000 FROM HIS SON. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXCLUDED THE RECEIPT OF RS.65 ,000 FROM THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT. ACCORDING TO THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEES SON WAS EMPLOYED AND HE WAS EARNING INCOME. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT SAID TO BE RECEIVED FROM HIS SON HAS TO BE TREATED AS LOAN IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 30. ON THE CONTRARY, SMT. LATHA V KUMAR, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT RS.65,000 WAS RECE IVED FROM HIS SON, NO MATERIAL WAS PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE AMOUNT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE, A CCORDING TO THE LD.DR, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY BEEN REJECTED BY THE CIT(A). 17 ITA NO. 57 TO 63/COCH/2014 31. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSE SSEE CLAIMS THAT A SUM OF RS.65,000 WAS RECEIVED FROM HIS SON. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEES SON WAS EARNING INCOME. EVEN DURING EXA MINATION THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE FOR MAKING ADVANCES F OR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. HE CLAIMED THAT HE HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.2 LAKHS FROM HIS SON. NO QUESTION WAS ASKED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORI TIES ABOUT THE SOURCE OF RECEIPT FROM HIS SON. NO INVESTIGATION WAS MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES AND NO MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEES SON COULD NOT HAVE EARNED THAT MONEY. IN THE ABSENCE O F ANY MATERIAL, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSE SSEE COULD HAVE RECEIVED RS.65,000 FROM HIS SON. BECAUSE OF CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FATHER AND SON NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE COULD BE EXP ECTED IN VIEW OF THE SMALLNESS OF THE AMOUNT. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT ADDITION OF RS.65,000 SAID TO HAVE BEE N RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEES SON IS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY ADDIT ION OF RS.65,000 IS DELETED. 32. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 007-08 IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS.93,167 FOUND IN THE BANK A CCOUNT. 18 ITA NO. 57 TO 63/COCH/2014 33. WE HEARD SHRI T.M. SRIDHARAN, THE LD. SENIOR CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SMT. LATHA V KUMAR, THE LD.DR. THE AS SESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT NO MATERIAL EVIDEN CE WAS PRODUCED TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS.93,167 FROM HIS SON. AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED EARLI ER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE ASSESSEES SON WAS AN EARNING MEM BER OF THE FAMILY AND IN VIEW OF THE CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE F ATHER AND SON NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE COULD HAVE BEEN PRODUCED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEES SON WAS NOT EARNING ANY INCOME, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT REJECTION OF CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS RECEIVED RS.93,167 FROM HI S SON MAY NOT BE JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS.93,167 IS DELETED. 34. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 007-08 IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS.3,50,000 SAID TO BE RECEIV ED FROM SHRI THOMAS. 35. WE HEARD SHRI T.M. SRIDHARAN, THE LD.SENIOR COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SMT. LATHA V KUMAR, THE LD.DR. 36. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE RECEIVED A LOAN OF RS.3,50,000 FROM SHRI THOMAS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER EXAMININ G THE BANK ACCOUNT FOUND THAT NO WITHDRAWAL WAS MADE FROM THE BANK ACC OUNT OF SHRI THOMAS. 19 ITA NO. 57 TO 63/COCH/2014 ACCORDINGLY, THE AFFIDAVIT SAID TO BE FILED BY SHRI THOMAS WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THOUGH SHRI THOMAS, BY WAY OF AN AFFIDAVIT CLAIMS THAT HE ADVANCED A SUM OF RS.3,50,000 TO THE ASSESS EE, HE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR LENDING SUCH AMOUNT. THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY SHRI THOMAS DOES NOT SHOW ANY WITHDRAWAL OF RS.3,50,000 ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE AMOUNT WAS SAI D TO BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT SHRI THOMAS WOULD NOT HAVE GIVEN THE SAID AMOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MADE TO THE EXTE NT OF RS.3,50,000 IS CONFIRMED. 37. NOW COMING TO THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09-10, APART FROM COMMON GROUNDS, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ANOTHER GRO UND WITH REGARD TO CASH RECEIVED FROM HIS SON TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,75 ,000. 38. WE HEARD SHRI TM SRIDHARAN, THE LD.SENIOR COUNS EL AND SMT. LATHA V KUMAR, THE LD.DR. 39. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT HE HAS RECEIVED RS. 7, 65,000 FROM HIS SON, SHRI ANIL GOVIND. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER EXCLUDED RS.3,65,000 OUT OF RS.7,65,000. DURING THE PROCEED INGS BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT RS.4 LAKHS WAS TRANSFERRED BY CHEQUE 20 ITA NO. 57 TO 63/COCH/2014 ON 13-11-2008. AN AMOUNT OF RS.90,000 WAS TRANSFER RED ON 08-04-2008 BY WAY OF CHEQUE. THE CIT(A) BY TAKING INTO CONSID ERATION ALL THESE TRANSACTIONS BY WAY OF CHEQUES RESTRICTED THE ADDIT ION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,75,000. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL THIS T RIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY REST RICTED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,75,000. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 40. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 009-10 IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS.1,40,000 TOWARDS CASH RECE IVED FROM ASSESSEES DAUGHTER. 41 WE HEARD SHRI TM SRIDHARAN, THE LD.SENIOR COUNS EL AND SMT. LATHA V KUMAR, THE LD.DR. 42. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITI ES THAT HE RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.1,40,000 FROM HIS DAUGHTER. HOWEVER, N O MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEES DAUGHTER W AS AN EARNING MEMBER OF THE FAMILY. EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4), THE ASSESSEE NEVER REFERRED ABOUT HIS DAUGHTER. TH EREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE RECEIVED RS.1,40,000 FROM HIS DAUGHTER IS WITHOUT ANY SUBSTANCE. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT 21 ITA NO. 57 TO 63/COCH/2014 THE LOWER AUTHORITY HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION O F RS. 1,40,000. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 43. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 009-10 IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS.1,75,000 AS CLAIMED TO HAV E BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE HSBC BANK ACCOUNT FOR MEETING MARRIAGE EXPENSES . 44. THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE CLAIMED IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT THAT A SUM OF RS.1,75,000 WAS R ECEIVED FROM HIS SON SHRI ANIL GOVIND FROM HIS HSBC BANK ACCOUNT. ACCOR DING TO THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL, A SUM OF RS.1,75,000 WAS WITHDRAWN FROM TH E BANK BY HIS SON TO MEET THE MARRIAGE EXPENSES IN THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER , 2008. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE T OTAL WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK WAS ONLY RS.1,80,000 AND THAT TOO ON 10-12-200 8 AND 17-12-2008, WHICH ARE AFTER THE MARRIAGE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. SENIOR COUNSEL, MARRIAGE EXPENSES WOULD BE SETTLED ONLY AFTER THE FUNCTIONS ARE OVER. THEREFORE, THE FUNDS WERE WITHDRAWN AFTER THE MARRIAGE TO SETTLE T HE EXPENSES. MERELY BECAUSE THE MONEY WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK ACCOU NT AFTER MARRIAGE, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE SAME COULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED FOR MARRIAGE EXPENSES. ACCORDING TO THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL, THIS AMOUNT WAS USED FOR SETTING THE MARRIAGE EXPENSES. 22 ITA NO. 57 TO 63/COCH/2014 45. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.DR IS THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS.1,80,000 WAS WITHDRAWN AFTER THE MARRIAGE, THEREFORE, THE SAME C OULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED FOR MARRIAGE PURPOSE. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, HAD THE WITHDRAWAL WAS MADE BEFORE THE DATE OF MARRIAGE THEN THERE WOU LD HAVE BEEN SOME JUSTIFICATION IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. 46. IT IS A FACT THAT MARRIAGE EXPENSES HAVE TO BE INCURRED BEFORE MARRIAGE AND SETTLEMENT HAS TO BE MADE AFTER MARRIA GE. IT IS IN PRACTICE IN THIS PART OF THE COUNTRY THAT FOR ARRANGING THE MAR RIAGE FUNCTION ONE HAS TO PAY ADVANCES AND THE FULL SETTLEMENT WOULD BE MADE ONLY AFTER MARRIAGE FUNCTIONS ARE OVER. THIS IS FOR THE REASON THAT NO ONE COULD ESTIMATE THE EXPENDITURE EXACTLY IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES WHICH HA VE TO BE INCURRED. FOR EXAMPLE IN RESPECT OF FOOD AND OTHER ARRANGEMENTS, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO MAKE ADVANCE AT THE TIME OF BOOKING TO THE CONCERNE D PERSON WHEREAS THE ACTUAL SETTLEMENT WOULD BE MADE ONLY AFTER THE MARR IAGE. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT MERELY B ECAUSE THE ASSESSEES SON WITHDREW THE MONEY FROM BANK AFTER THE MARRIAGE , IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE SAME WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED FOR MEETING THE MARRIAGE EXPENSES. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN AFTER THE MARRIAGE MIGHT HAVE BEEN USED F OR SETTLING THE MARRIAGE EXPENSES. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS.1 ,75,000 IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 23 ITA NO. 57 TO 63/COCH/2014 ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO D ELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,75,000. 47. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 200 3-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06 ARE DISMISSED; AND APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT Y EARS 2006-07, 2007- 08 AND 2009-10 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 09 TH JANUARY, 2015. SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN, DT : 09 TH JANUARY, 2015 PK/- COPY TO: 1. SHRI K GOVINDA PILLAI, SHANTHI BHAVN, ANCHAL, KO LLAM 2. THE DCIT, CENT.CIR., KOLLAM 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL), KOCHI 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A)-III, KOCHI 5. THE DR (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH