A.R.Srinivasan (Indl), CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 651/CHNY/1991

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90483 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 24 year(s) 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 23-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 1986-1987
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-1991
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HIS LR MRS GEETHA SHIVAKUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: V D GOPAL; SHRI A V
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Business income; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 68; 2

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHE NNAI , . ! ! ! ! , ' ' ' ' #$ #$ #$ #$ BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.651/MDS/1991 ' ! %! / ASSESSMENT YEAR :1986-87 SHRI A.R. SRINIVASAN (INDIVIDUAL), [BY HIS L/R MRS. GEETHA SHIVAKUMAR & MRS. UMA SHANKAR], NO. 8, 5 TH STREET, DR. RADHAKRISHNAN SALAI, MYLAPORE, MADRAS 600 004. [PAN/GIR: 2708-S/47-067-PX-7412] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CITY CIRCLE V(INV.), MADRAS ( &' &' &' &' /APPELLANT ) ( ()&' ()&' ()&' ()&' / RESPONDENT ) &' * + / APPELLANT BY : SHRI V.D. GOPAL, ADVOCATE ()&' * + / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, JCIT * , / DATE OF HEARING : 23.04.2015 -.% * , /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.06.2015 / / / / / O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : IN PURSUANCE TO THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISD ICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN T.C.(A) NO. 168 OF 2004 DATED 19.08.2013 AND T.C .(A) NOS. 166 TO 169 OF 2004 DATED 27.09.2011, THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NO. 651/MDS/1991 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1986-87 VIDE C ONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 20.10.2003 HAS BEEN SET ASIDE AND REMANDED TH E MATTER BACK TO TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE THE APPEAL RELATING TO ASSESSABI LITY OF CASH CREDITS UNDER I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .651 651651 651/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/91 9191 91 2 SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT RAISED IN GROUND N OS. 21, 22 AND 23 IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT GROUNDS ARE RE PRODUCED AS UNDER: 21. THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIR MING THE ADDITION MADE TOWARDS THE BANK DEPOSITS WITHOUT EVINCING A P OSITIVE MIND TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE APPEL LANT'S CASE. 22. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW SHOULD HAVE NOTED THAT T HE INDIVIDUAL FUNDS NEED NOT BE UTILISED FOR LIQUIDATING THE BUSI NESS FUNDS; ESPECIALLY WHEN THE BUSINESS HAS BEEN CONVERTED INT O A PARTNERSHIP AND ALSO A CHANGE THERETO HAS TAKEN PLA CE AND MORE ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE WAS A VERITABLE MISUNDERSTAND ING AMONGST THE PARTNERS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCLINATION ON T HE PART OF THE PARTNERS TO PUMP IN ENOUGH FUNDS, INSPITE OF THEIR EARLIER AGREEMENT TO THAT EFFECT. 23. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE EXAMINED THE EXPLANATIONS SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF EACH AND EVERY CLAIM MADE E VEN BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE FAMILY OF TH E APPELLANT IN FACT OWNS VAST AGRL. LAND HOLDINGS. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: IT IS FOUND FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BANK AC COUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT VARIOUS DEPOSITS AND INVESTMENTS ETC. WERE MAD E IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS BY THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH NO CONVINCING EXPLANATION COULD BE FURNISHED BY THE AR PRESENT. THESE ARE DISCUSSED AS HEREUNDER: IN THE CURRENT ACCOUNT WITH THE STATE BANK OF INDIA , MOUNT ROAD (LF NO. 71507 JOINT ACCOUNT) OF SHRI A.R,. SRINIVASAN AND HIS TWO DAUGHTERS MRS. GEETHA SIVAKUMAR AND MRS. UMA SANKAR A SUM OF .28.25 LAKHS WAS DEPOSITED DURING THE PERIOD 15.4.1985 TO 17.4.1 985. SHRI A.R. SRINIVASAN HAS GIVEN THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATION REGA RDING THE SOURCE OF THE ABOVE DEPOSITS. 1. TRANSFER FROM CURRENT ACCOUNT OF SHRI A.R. SRINIVASAN WITH GRINDLAYS BANK, MADRAS 2. . 5 LAKHS 2. TRANSFER FROM THE CURRENT ACCOUNT OF SHRI R.N. RATNAM, A RELATIVE FROM STATE BANK OF INDIA, MADRAS MAIN BRANCH . 2 LAKHS I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .651 651651 651/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/91 9191 91 3 3. OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME, SALE PROCEEDS OF LANDS, SAVINGS (PIN MONEY) ETC. OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS . 13 LAKHS 4. OUT OF DRAWINGS FROM MIDLAND THEATRE (P) LTD. . 5 LAKHS 5. BORROWALS FROM VARIOUS PARTIES . 2.55 LAKHS 6. WITHDRAWALS FROM OTHER BANK ACCOUNTS . 0.70 LAKHS TOTAL . 28.25 LAKHS THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF THE FIRST MENTIONED TWO ITEMS (SL.NO. 1 AND 2) IS FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE. HOWEVER , THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER ITEMS IS NEITHE R SUPPORTED WITH FULL PROOF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE NOR IT IS CONVINCING ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISH ED THE FOLLOWING DETAILS IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT OF .13 LAKHS. AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND SALES IN RESPECT OF SHRI A. R. SRINIVASN, MRS. GEETHA SIVAKUMAR, MRS. UMA SANKAR A ND MISS. MALAVIKA SIVAKUMAR . 5 LAKHS AGRICULTURAL LAND INCOME AND SALES IN RESPECT OF MR . SIVAKUMAR . 1 LAKH AGRICULTURAL LAND INCOME AND SALES IN RESPECT OF S. RAM . 1 LAKH AR SRINIVASAN HUF FUND . 4 LAKHS MRS. GEETHA (PIN MONEY) . 1 LAKH UMA SANKAR (PIN MONEY) . 1 LAKH COPIES OF DEEDS IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL LANDS SOLD DURING THE YEAR 1984 AND EARLIER YEARS AS BACK AS 1974 HAVE BEEN FU RNISHED. IT IS FOUND THAT SHRI A.R. SRINIVASAN WAS UNDER HEAVY DEBTS. THE MAIN REA SON FOR THE SALE OF LEO THEATRE AS WELL AS MIDLAND THEATRE WAS TO DISCHARGE HIS FINANCIAL LIABILITIES WHICH RUN INTO SEVERAL LAKHS OF RUPEES. SHRI A.R. S RINIVASAN HAD IN FACT MADE THE PAYMENT OF LOANS TO M/S. V.R.V. & CO. KUMBAKONAM DU RING THE YEAR AS MENTIONED BELOW: DATE MODE OF PAYMENT AMOUNT 12.4.1985 BY CHEQUE RS.10,00,000 12.4.1985 BY CHEQUE RS.10,00,000 3.8.1985 BY CHEQUE RS. 5,00,000 21.10.1985 BY CHEQUE RS. 7,25,000 THUS THE POSSIBILITY OF ANY SAVINGS OUT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME THEREFROM IS COMPLETELY RULED O UT IN THE CASE OF SHRI A.R. SRINIVASAN AS WELL AS HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. IT IS FOU ND THAT MRS. GEETHA SIVAKUMAR HAD IN FACT BORROWED FUNDS FREQUENTLY FRO M PAWN BROKERS BY PLEDGING HER JEWELS. THE AR PRESENT COULD NOT PROVE AND ESTABLISH THAT THE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .651 651651 651/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/91 9191 91 4 RECEIPTS FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND AGRICU LTURAL INCOME WAS SAVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. AS THE ASSESSE E WAS ALREADY UNDER HEAVY PRESSURE OF FREQUENT BORROWINGS AND MAKING FOR ARRA NGEMENT FOR REPAYMENT OF LOANS AND INTEREST AND HIS BUSINESS WAS ALSO NOT BE ING WELL HE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN A POSITION TO SAVE OUT OF THE PROCEEDS RECE IVED FROM THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME ETC. AS THESE WOULD BE NEUTRALISED EITHER BY THE REPAYMENT OF LOAN AND INTEREST TO VAR IOUS PARTIES AS WELL AS TO HIS PERSONAL AND FAMILY EXPENSES. THE SUDDEN INTRODUCTI ON OF PIN MONEY BY HIS DAUGHTERS IN THE BOOKS OF M/S. MIDLAND THEATRE AND THEN THE TRANSFER OF THE SAME IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED BANK ACCOUNT IS HIGHLY SUSPI CIOUS AS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR ANY SUCH SAVINGS BY THEM. IT IS UNBELIEVABLE TH AT SUCH HUGE AMOUNT WOULD BE RETAINED BY THEM IN CASH AND AT THE SAME TIME THEY ARE FOUND TO BE MAKING WITHDRAWALS FROM THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS RELATE TO E ARLIER YEARS WHICH FURTHER MAKES THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION UNRELIABLE. IT IS STATED THAT A SUM OF RS.5 LAKHS HAVE BEEN DRAWN FROM M/S. MIDLAND THEATRE PRIVATE L IMITED AND IT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE ABOVE BANK ACCOUNT. THESE WITHDRAW ALS ARE APPARENTLY MADE IN THE EARLIER YEARS. ALMOST ALL THESE WITHDRAWALS HAV E EITHER BEEN USED IN REPAYMENT OF LOAN AND INTEREST AS WELL AS FOR MEETI NG VARIOUS EXPENSES AND HENCE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY SURPLUS BEING AVA ILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR REDEPOSITING THE SAME IN THE ABOVE BANK ACCOUNT. TH E BORROWALS MADE FROM VARIOUS PARTIES AMOUNT TO RS.2.55 LAKHS IS ALSO FOU ND TO HAVE BEEN UTILISED FOR THE IMMEDIATE BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS THEREBY LEAVING NO SURPLUS FOR DEPOSITING IN THE ABOVE BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATI ON REGARDING THE WITHDRAWALS FROM THE OTHER BANK ACCOUNTS AMOUNTING TO RS.70,000/- IS ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR THE AFORESAID REASONS. THUS OUT OF T HE ABOVE MENTIONED 28.25 LAKHS THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION IS FOUND TO BE ACC EPTABLE FOR A SUM OF RS.7 LAKHS ONLY. THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.21.25 LAKHS IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND IT IS BEING ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WHILE TAKING THE ABOVE VIEW, I ALSO FIND SUPPORT F ROM THE OTHER PECULIAR FEATURES OF THIS CASE. IT IS FOUND THAT ON 16.4.198 5 AND 17.4.1985 TWO EMPLOYEES OF SHRI A.R. SRINIVASAN VIZ. SHRI RAMRAJ AND CHELLI AH HAD CARRIED HUGE CASH TO VARIOUS BANKS IN AND AROUND THE CITY OF MADRAS FOR PURCHASING BANK DRAFTS IN THE NAMES OF SHRI A.R. SRINIVASAN, MRS. UMA SANKAR AND MRS. GEETHA SIVAKUMAR ETC. AS MENTIONED BELOW: DRAFT PURCHASED IN FAVOUR OF /NAME OF THE BANK AMOUNT/DATE PURCHASED BY A.R. SRINIVASAN/SBI., MAIN BRANCH RS.1,50,000/16.4. 85 RAMRAJ A.R. SRINIVASAN/SBI., MAIN BRANCH RS.1,50,000/16.4. 85 CHELLIAH A.R. SRINIVASAN/SBI., NUNGAMBAKKAM RS.2,00,000/17.4 .85 CHELLIAH A.R. SRINIVASAN/SBI., MANDAVELI RS.2,00,000/16.4.85 RAMRAJ UMA SANKAR/SBI., ALWARPET RS.1,50,000/16.4.85 CHELL IAH GEETHA SANKAR/SBI., ALWARPET RS.1,00,000/16.4.85 RA MRAJ I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .651 651651 651/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/91 9191 91 5 THE ADDRESSES OF THESE TWO PERSONS ARE ALSO FOUND T O BE DIFFERENT IN THE VARIOUS BANK DRAFT APPLICATION FORMS. THE AR PRESENT WAS AS KED TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR SUCH A DUBIOUS METHOD OF MAKING THE ABOVE DEPOS ITS AND ALSO TO EXPLAIN WHY THESE PERSONS CARRIED SUCH A HUGE CASH TO FARAWAY P LACES RUNNING INTO UNNECESSARY RISK INSTEAD OF DEPOSITING THE CASH DIR ECT INTO THE STATE BANK OF INDIA WHICH WAS VERY NEAR THE THEATRE. THE AR PRESE NT COULD NOT EXPLAIN ANYTHING IN THE ABOVE MATTER. THE SUSPICIOUS NATURE OF THESE DEPOSITS BY OBTAINING BANK DRAFT FURTHER MAKES THE ASSESSEES A PPLICATION UNACCEPTABLE. WHILE MAKING THE ABOVE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXP LAINED INVESTMENT THIS ASPECT HAS ALSO BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AS THE DEPO SITS COMING OUT FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME, SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS, PI N MONEY ETC. ARE APPARENTLY INTRODUCED THROUGH THESE BANK DRAFTS. 3. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, THE ASSE SSMENT FOR THE YEAR WAS COMPLETED BY ASSESSING NET TAXABLE INCOME AT .38,32,103/-. 4. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A) AND MADE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS. THE LD. CIT(A), AFTER CO NSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION TOWARDS BANK DEPOSITS OF .13 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVIN G AS UNDER: 4.6 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS REGARDING TH E EXPLANATION IN CONNECTION WITH THIS EXPLANATION OF DEPOSIT OF .13 LAKHS. IT SHOULD BE MENTIONED HERE THAT ALL THESE AMOUNTS CAME TO SURFA CE ONLY ON A PARTICULAR DATE AND ON THAT PARTICULAR DATE TWO PER SONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT WENT TO VARIOUS BANKS IN MADRAS TO DEPOSI T LARGE AMOUNT OF CASH TO PURCHASE BANK DRAFTS. IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE CASE OF MRS. GEETHA SHIVAKUMAR THAT SOME OF THE LANDS WERE SOLD IN 1974 AND BALANCE SOLD IN 1984 AND SALE PROCEEDS OF LANDS AND AGRICUL TURAL INCOME FROM LANDS WERE ROTATED IN THE VILLAGE. NO INTERESTS WER E RECEIVED AND IN 1984 THEY WERE COLLECTED AND BROUGHT INTO HER CAPITAL AC COUNT WITH MIDLAND THEATRE. IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT WHEN MRS. GEETHA SHIVAKUMAR WAS PAWNING HER JEWELLERY AND OBTAINING LOAN ON INTERES T SHE WILL KEEP MONEY WITH OTHERS WITHOUT INTEREST. IT IS ALSO UNBELIEVAB LE THAT WHEN THE FIRM OF M/S. MIDLAND THEATRE IS SUFFERING FROM ACUTE SHORTA GE OF FUNDS MRS. GEETHA SHIVAKUMAR WILL KEEP MONEY IN THE VILLAGE AN D ROTATE THE SAME WITH THE VILLAGERS. SIMILAR IS THE CASE WITH THE PI N MONEY. IF THE PIN MONEY IS AVAILABLE, THE SAME WOULD BEEN UTILISED. THE SAM E EXPLANATION HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THE CASE OF MRS. UMA SHANKAR. REGARDING A. R. SRINIVASANS I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .651 651651 651/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/91 9191 91 6 INCOME FROM LAND AMOUNTING TO MORE THAN RS.80,000/- WAS ALSO NOT UTILISED FROM 1979 ONWARDS. ALL THESE CASH WAS AVAI LABLE TO HIM. BUT THEY WERE NOT UTILISED WHEN HE WAS IN NEED OF MONEY. IT APPEARS TO BE THAT THE EXPLANATION DOES NOT BEER SCRUTINY AND IT COULD BE STATED VERY CLEARLY THAT THIS EXPLANATION GIVEN ABOUT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND INCOME AND SALES FOR VARIOUS YEARS FROM WHICH RS.5 LAKHS HAS BEEN OBTAIN ED CLEARLY CANNOT BE BELIEVED. AS HAS BEEN STATED EARLIER IT IS APPLICAB LE FOR PIN MONEY CONTRIBUTION FROM MRS. GEETHA SHIVAKUMAR AND MRS. U MA SHANKAR AS WELL. 5. THE EXPLANATION OF RS.5 LAKHS WITHDRAWN FROM SH RI A.R. SRINIVASANS ACCOUNT IN GRINDLAYS BANK AND PAY ORD ER ON ACCOUNT OF SHRI R.N. RATNAM HAVE ALREADY BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER. REGARDING THE CLAIM OF AVAILABILITY OF RS.4 LAKHS F ROM SHRI A.R. SRINIVASAN(HUF) FUNDS AND DRAWINGS OF RS.5 LAKHS FR OM M/S. MIDLAND THEATRES (P) LTD. NO DETAILS AHVE BEEN GIVEN TO SUB STANTIATE THAT THESE AMOUNTS WERE FROM THOSE PARTICULAR SOURCES. I, THER EFORE, DO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER IN THIS REGARD. 6. THERE ARE WITHDRAWALS OF RS.35,000/- FROM THE A CCOUNT OF M/S. MIDLAND THEATRE IN GRINDLAYS BANK ON 28.3.1985 OF R S.35,000/- AND AN AMOUNT OF RS.10,000/- FROM THE ACCOUNT OF M/S. MIDL AND THEATRE CIRCUIT IN SBI ON 14.3.1985, AND AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,50,000/- IN THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI A.R. SRINIVASAN FROM THE SAME BANK. THESE WERE WITH DRAWN IN THE MONTH OF MARCH AND THESE DEPOSITS WERE MADE DURING THE PE RIOD FROM 15.4.1985 TO 17.4.1985. FROM THE CASH BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE IT APPEARS THAT THESE AMOUNTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE FOR MAKING THE DEPOSITS FROM 15.4.1985 TO 17.4.1985. I, THEREFORE, DO NOT PROPOSE TO INTERFER E WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER IN THIS REGARD. 7. DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL HEARING, I DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE SOME PARTIES FROM WHOM LOANS WER E ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN. LOANS AMOUNT TO RS.2.55 LAKHS, I HAVE R ECEIVED REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. OUT OF THESE AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,1 0,000/- WAS ARRANGED BY A FINANCE BROKER SHRI BHAGWANDAS. THE FOLLOWING ARE SUCH CREDITS- 1. MRS. MAN KANWAR RS. 75,000 2. MRS. ANANDRAJ RS. 37,500 3. - DO - RS. 37,500 4. M.K. JAIN RS. 20,000 5. S.S. CORPORATION RS. 20,000 6. C. SIVA RS. 20,000 OUT OF OTHER LOANS AMOUNT TO RS.45,000/- SHRI K.P. KANNAPPAN HAS CONFIRMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE ADVA NCED RS.30,000/- ON I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .651 651651 651/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/91 9191 91 7 21.3.1985. THIS LOAN ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFF ICER APPEARS TO BE GENUINE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENTIONED THAT R EGARDING THE OTHER LOANS HE EXAMINED THE BOOKS AND FOUND THEM APPEARIN G IN THE BOOKS. BUT HE HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN I N THE PRACTICE OF RESORTING TO HEAVY BORROWALS DURING THAT PERIOD. IT IS ALSO FOUND THAT THE AMOUNTS BORROWED HAS BEEN UTILISED IN THE BUSINESS AND THEY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED FOR DEPOSITING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT A S CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT SOME OF THE DEP OSITS ARE OUT OF WITHDRAWALS FROM BANK ACCOUNT IS NOT CORRECT AS THE WITHDRAWALS HAVE FOUND TO BE UTILISED IN THE BUSINESS AND NOT USED F OR DEPOSITION IN THE ACCOUNT WITH THE STATE BANK OF INDIA. THE PHOTO COP IES FROM THE CASH BOOK MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR MIDLAND AND LEO THEA TRES FOR THE DAYS 11.3.1985, 14.3.1985, 28.3.1985, 8.4.1985 AND 9.4.1 985 BEARS TESTIMONY TO THIS. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 1986- 87 (PAGE 6) ALSO IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE BORROWALS MADE FROM VARIOUS PART IES AMOUNTING TO 2.55 LAKHS IS ALSO FOUND TO BE UTILISED FOR THE IMM EDIATE BUSINESS REQUIREMENT THEREBY LEAVING NO SURPLUS DEPOSITS IN THE ABOVE BANK ACCOUNT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE OFFICER HELD THAT THOUGH BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THE LOANS COULD BE PROVED T O BE GENUINE, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THESE WERE AVAILABLE FOR D EPOSITING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA. THUS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE UTILISATION OF THE LOANS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2.55 LAKHS FOR PUTTING INTO BANK ACCOUNT CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ACCEPTABLE. ONE THINGS BECOMES CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE ASSESS EE WAS CONTINUOUSLY IN NEED OF MONEY TO RUN ITS BUSINESS. IT HAS ALREADY T AKEN LOAN FROM KUMBAKONAM FINANCIERS AND HE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO REPAY THE LOAN AND BECAUSE OF THE SAME HE BROUGHT SMT. JAYAPRADHA AND HER NOMINEES IN THE BUSINESS. IF THE APPELLANT AND HIS DAUGHTERS RE ALLY WERE HAVING RS. 28 LAKHS AT THAT TIME THERE WAS NO NECESSITY OF BRINGI NG SMT. JAYAPRADHA WITH A PROMISED HELP OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.30 LAKHS. MOREOV ER THERE WAS NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE R EALLY THERE WITH THE ASSESSEE. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REALLY NO CONVINCING EXPLANATION TO OFFER FOR THE AVAILABILITY OF THE AM OUNT OF RS.7.70 LAKHS OUT OF RS.28.5 LAKHS DEPOSITED IN THE CURRENT ACCOUNT W ITH THE STATE BANK OF INDIA. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT TO THE TUNE OF RS .21.25 LAKHS. I CONFIRM THE ADDITION. 5. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE M ATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .651 651651 651/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/91 9191 91 8 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BASELESS. THE ASSE SSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS AS IT IS FROM SALE OF AGRICULTUR AL LAND AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND ALSO BUSINESS INCOME FROM THE MIDLAND TH EATRE. THEREFORE, HE PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION MAY BE DELETED. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SMT. P.K. NOORJAHAN 103 TAXMAN 382 ( SC). 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED ANY SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO A GRICULTURAL INCOME, SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND BUSINESS INCOME RELATING T O MIDLAND THEATRE. HE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ISSUE BEFORE US FOR CONSIDERATION IS WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF .21.25 LAKHS. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED VARIOUS DEPOSITS AND INVESTMENTS ETC. IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. SBI JOINT ACCOUNT OF SHRI A.R. SR INIVASAN AND HIS TWO DAUGHTERS MRS. GEETHA SIVAKUMAR AND MRS. UMA SANKAR , A SUM OF .28.25 LAKHS WAS DEPOSITED DURING THE PERIOD 15.04.1985 TO 17.04.1985, OUT OF WHICH FOR .7.00 LAKHS, THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN EXPLANATION AND THE SAME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FOR THE BALA NCE AMOUNT OF .21.25 LAKHS, THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IN ITEM-WISE. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .651 651651 651/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/91 9191 91 9 THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN EXPLANATION BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF .13 LAKHS THAT THE ABOVE AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME, SA LE PROCEEDS OF LANDS, SAVINGS (PIN MONEY) ETC. OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED COPIES OF DEEDS IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN AGR ICULTURAL LAND SOLD DURING THE YEAR 1984 AND EARLIER YEARS AS BACK AS 1974. AF TER CONSIDERING THE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, AG RICULTURAL INCOME AND SAVINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY MATERIAL TO PROVE AND ESTABLISH THAT THE RECEIP TS FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS SAVED BY THE ASSE SSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEPOSITS. SO FA R AS BUSINESS INCOME FROM THE MIDLAND THEATRE IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REC EIVED THE INCOME FROM THE THEATRE. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED HUGE DEBTS TO M/S. V.R.V. & CO. KUMBAKONAM. THE AGRICULTURAL LAND S WERE SOLD TO REPAY THE DEBTS. SO FAR AS BORROWALS FROM VARIOUS PARTIES AMOUNTING TO .2.55 LAKHS IS CONCERNED, IT IS ALSO FOUND TO HAVE BEEN U TILIZED FOR IMMEDIATE BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS THEREBY LEAVING NO SURPLUS FO R DEPOSITING IN THE ABOVE BANK ACCOUNT. SO FAR AS WITHDRAWALS FROM OTHE R BANK ACCOUNTS AMOUNTING TO .70,000/- IS CONCERNED, NO EVIDENCE OR PROOF WAS FU RNISHED. ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY MAKING ADD ITION OF .21.25 LAKHS. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDE R OF THE ASSESSING I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .651 651651 651/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/91 9191 91 10 OFFICER. BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS WHICH HE HAS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT T HE SOURCE OF THE BANK DEPOSIT IS OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND SALE PROC EEDS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND SAVINGS OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS AND DRAWINGS FROM MIDLAND THEATRE PVT. LTD. AS PER THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IN RESPECT OF COPIES OF DEEDS RELATING TO SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND DURING THE YEAR 1984 AND EARLIER YEAR 1974. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIAT E BEFORE US WHAT IS THE EXTENT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD IN THE YEAR 1984, IN EARLIER YEARS WHAT IS THE AMOUNT USED FOR CLEARING THE DEBTS AND WHAT IS THE BALANCE AVAILABLE WITH HIM. IN SO FAR AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ABLE TO ESTABLISHED OR EXPLAIN BEFORE US WITH REGARD TO THE EXTENT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND HELD BY SHRI A.R. SRINIVASAN AND HIS DAUGHTERS SMT. GEETHA SIVAKUMAR AND SMT. UMA SANKAR AND WHAT IS THE AMOUNT SAVED EV ERY YEAR BY THEM. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBS ERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BORROWED HUGE AMOUNT FROM M/S. V.R.V. & CO., KUMBAKONAM AMOUNTING TO .27.25 LAKHS. IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO HOW THOSE AMOUNTS WERE REPAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED BANK DRAFT S FROM DIFFERENT BANK IN THE CITY AMOUNTING TO .9.50 LAKHS DEPOSITED THROUGH HIS SERVANTS IN DIFFE RENT BRANCHES OF THE BANK IN THE MADRAS CITY ON 16.4.198 5 AND 17.04.1985. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY EXPLANATION EVEN BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSITS MADE BY HIM IN I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .651 651651 651/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/91 9191 91 11 THE STATE BANK OF INDIA TO THE EXTENT OF .21.25 LAKHS. THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY INVOKED SECTION 6 8 OF THE ACT AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE CASE LAW RELIED ON BY THE LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NO APPLICATION AND NOT RELEVANT TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 19 TH OF JUNE, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 19.06.2015 VM/- / * (',01 21%, /COPY TO: 1. &' / APPELLANT, 2. ()&' / RESPONDENT, 3. 3 ( ) /CIT(A), 4. 3 /CIT, 5. 14 (',' /DR & 6. 5! 6 /GF.