V.V.Sasi, Cochin V. DCIT, Ernakulam

ITA 697/COCH/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 52231 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 20-12-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T J VINCENT
• Assessee Lawyers: T M SREEDHARAN SR ADV
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Capital asset; Peak credit
• Section: 143(3); 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL COCHIN BEN CH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI N.VIJAYAKUMARAN, JM AND SANJAY AR ORA, AM I.T.A. NOS. 697 TO 703/COCH/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2008-09 V.V.SASI, VELLAYIKULAM HOUSE, SREEMOOLANAGARAM P.O., VELLARAPPILLY, ERNAKULAM. [PAN: AVJPS 5490E] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, ERNAKULAM. (ASSESSEE-APPELLANT) (REVENUE- RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI T.M.SREEDHARAN, SR.ADV.-AR REVENUE BY SHRI T.J.VINCENT, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 25/07/2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 24/08/2011 O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THESE ARE A SET OF SEVEN APPEALS, I.E., FOR SEVEN CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS FROM A.Y. 2002-03 TO 2008-09, FOLLOWING THE ADJUDICATION OF THE ASSESSMENTS FRAMED U/S. 153A R/W S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ('T HE ACT' HEREINAFTER) BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) CONSEQUENT TO SEARCH AT THE RESIDENTIA L PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON 26.3.2008, VIDE SEPARATE ORDERS OF E VEN DATE, I.E., 24.9.2010 BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, KOCHI (CIT (A) FOR SHORT). 2. AS THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE APPEALS ARE COMMON, ARISING OUT OF THE SAME SEARCH, THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER, AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY A COMMON, CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONVENIENCE. HOWEVER, WE SHALL NARR ATE THE FACTS SEPARATELY FOR EACH YEAR, TO BRING OUT ANY CHANGES THAT MAY OBTAIN FOR ANY PA RTICULAR YEAR. V.V. SASI V. DY. CIT, ERNAKULAM (ASSTT. YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09) 2 A.Y. 2002-03 3.1 THE ASSESSEES ORIGINAL RETURN WAS FILED U/S. 1 39(4) ON 30/12/2003 AT AN INCOME OF ` 60530/-, BESIDES AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ` 40,000/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE DEALING IN REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, OWNING 11 DIFFEREN T PIECES OF LAND, OF WHICH TWO WERE IN THE NAMES OF HIS WIFE AND, FURTHER, OF WHICH TWO (M EASURING 10 CENTS EACH), PURCHASED IN THE YEAR 1995 (AT AN STATED CONSIDERATION OF ` 1000/-) WERE SOLD FOR ` 20,000/- EACH. THE LANDS WERE IN THE PERIPHERY OF KOCHI CORPORATION AN D OSTENSIBLY HELD AS STOCK- IN- TRADE, FOR BEING SOLD AT AN APPRECIATED VALUE. FURTHER, C ASH DEPOSITS AT AN AGGREGATE OF ` 9.355 LAKHS WERE OBSERVED ON DIFFERENT DATES DURING THE Y EAR (16) IN THE OVERDRAFT (O.D. ACCOUNT NO. 92) WITH FEDERAL BANK LTD., KANJOOR. TH E ASSESSEE WAS, ACCORDINGLY, QUESTIONED IN ITS RESPECT INCLUDING SPECIFICALLY FO R THREE DEPOSITS, I.E., FOR ` 90,000/- (ON 11.6.2001); ` 1,60,000/- (ON 30.7.2001); AND ` 1 LAKH (ON 1.10.2001). THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE CASH DEPOSITS AS REPRESENTING THE SAL E PROCEEDS OF HIS BRICK KILN BUSINESS. FURTHER, THE DEPOSIT OF ` 90,000/- AND OF ` 1,60,000/- WAS STATED AS OUT OF THE WITHDRAWAL OF ` 2,50,000/- FROM THE SAID O.D. ACCOUNT ITSELF ON 28. 3.2001. THE THIRD DEPOSIT OF ` 1 LAKH WAS EXPLAINED AS BEING ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF B RICKS. THE SAME WAS FOUND AS WHOLLY UNACCEPTABLE BY THE AO. THREE IS NO QUESTION OF TH E ASSESSEES WITHDRAWING A HUGE AMOUNT OF ` 2,50,000/- AND MAINTAINING IT AS CASH, ONLY TO DEPO SIT AFTER A GAP OF OVER 75 DAYS ( ` 90,000/-), AND OVER 120 DAYS ( ` 1,60,000/-). ACCORDINGLY, HE BROUGHT TO TAX ` 2,50,000/- DEPOSITED ON 11.6.2001 AND 30.7.2001. AG AIN, TRUCK LOAD OF BRICKS VALUES NO MORE THAN ` 4000/-, SO THAT ` 1 LAKH, DEPOSITED ON 1.10. 2001 WOULD IMPLY A SALE OF 25 TRUCKS. BRICK BUSINESS IS EVEN OTHERWISE SEASONAL, AND THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE ASSESSEE TO ACCUMULATE CASH. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE STATING HIS TURNOVER OF THE BRICK BUSINESS FOR THE YEAR AT ` 720550/-, HE BROUGHT THE ENTIRE OF IT TO TAX, AFTE R DEDUCTING THE INCOME DECLARED PER RETURN U/S. 139 ( ` 60526/-), I.E., ` 660024/-. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ` 40,000/- WAS ALSO NOT ACCEPTED IN THE ABSENCE OF AN Y EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF ANY AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE, E VEN THOUGH HE DID NOT MAKE ANY SEPARATE ADDITION FOR THE SAME, TELESCOPING IT AGAINST THE A DDITION OF ` 6.60 LAKHS V.V. SASI V. DY. CIT, ERNAKULAM (ASSTT. YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09) 3 3.2 IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ASSESSM ENT IN PRINCIPLE; THE ASSESSEE HAVING FAILED TO FURNISH ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATI ON OR COGENT MATERIAL EVEN BEFORE HIM. HOWEVER, HE FOUND THAT THE TOTAL ADDITION EFFECTED BY THE AO, I.E., ` 910024/- ( ` 660024/- + ` 2,50,000/- EXCEEDED THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT; THE AO HAVING HIMSELF ALLOWED CREDIT FOR T HE INCOME DISCLOSED PER RETURN U/S. 139 ( ` 60526), SO THAT THE SAME WOULD WORK TO ` 874974/-. ACCORDINGLY, HE ALLOWED RELIEF FOR THE EXCESS AMOUNT OF ` 35026/- ( ` 910024/- MINUS ` 874974/-). THE AO HAD, HOWEVER, FAILED TO BRING TO TAX THE ADMITTED CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SALE DURING THE YEAR OF TWO PROPERTIES COMPRISING 10 CENTS EACH, I.E., ` 37,000/- ( ` 40,000 - ` 3000) . THE SAME WAS DIRECTED TO BE ADDED. THE ASSESSMENT OF AGRICULTUR AL INCOME, AS WELL AS ITS TELESCOPING AGAINST THE OTHER ADDITIONS, WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY HIM. A.Y. 2003-04 4. THE FACTS IN RELATION TO A.Y.2003-04 ARE ES SENTIALLY THE SAME; THE AGGREGATE DEPOSITS IN THE O.D. ACCOUNT BEING AT ` 1188000/-. IN FACT, FOR THIS YEAR, THE AO DID NOT RELATE THE SAID CREDITS WITH THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS TURNOVER WHICH INCLUDED THE CRUSHER BUSINESS; THE ASSESSEE HAVING PURCHASED A CRUSHER UNIT DURING THE YEAR, SO THAT THE ENTIRE ` 11.88 LAKHS, SAVE TO THE EXTENT ALREADY RETURNED PER THE RETURNS U/S. 139 AND U/S. 153A, WAS BROUGHT TO TAX. THE SECOND DIFFERENCE THAT OBTAINS FOR THIS YEAR IS THAT NO TELESCOPING BENEFIT WAS ALLOWED FOR THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME, WH ICH FOR THE YEAR STOOD AT ` 50,000/-, SO THAT THE INCOME FOR THE YEAR STOOD ASSESSED AT ` 12.38 LAKHS ( ` 11.88 + ` 0.50). THE SAME STOOD CONFIRMED IN APPEAL FOR THE SAME REASONS. A.Y. 2004-05 5.1 THE POSITION AS REGARDS THE NATURE OF THE A DDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES MADE, AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEES CASE WITH REFERENCE THERE-TO, IS ALM OST THE SAME FOR THIS YEAR. THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY QUESTIONED IN RESPECT OF THREE DEP OSITS AGGREGATING TO ` 13 LAKHS, I.E., ON 28.5.2002 ( ` 1 LAKH), 19.5.2003 AND 30.7.2003 (AT ` 2 LAKHS) AND 8.1.2004 ( ` 10 LAKHS), V.V. SASI V. DY. CIT, ERNAKULAM (ASSTT. YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09) 4 FORMING A PART OF THE TOTAL DEPOSITS FOR ` 60.66 LAKHS IN ITS O.D. ACCOUNT DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN ANY OF THESE, IN SPITE OF BEING SPECIFICALLY QUESTIONED WITH REGARD TO THE NATURE AS WELL AS THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM THESE WERE STATED TO HAVE ARISEN, WHICH WERE THEREF ORE CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED. ANOTHER SET OF DEPOSITS, AGGREGATING TO ` 33.51 LAKHS, WERE CONSIDERED AS EXPLAINED. THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS ( ` 15,45,690/-) WAS ASSESSED AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME, OF COURSE AFTER ALLOWING CREDIT FOR THE INCOME DECLARED PER T HE ORIGINAL RETURN AS WELL AS THE LOAN AMOUNT OF ` 50,000/- RECEIVED FROM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, E VEN AS WE FIND THE SAME TO BEAR A MISTAKE OF ` 49,800/- (REFER PG. 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER). ANO THER ADDITION IS FOR ` 9 LAKHS DEPOSITED IN THE ASSESSEES SAVING BANK ACC OUNT (NO. 8671) WITH FEDERAL BANK ON 6.10.2003; THE ASSESSEE BEING UNABLE TO EXP LAIN THE SAME. THERE IS ANOTHER ADDITION OF ` 50,000/-, WHICH, THOUGH TERMED BY THE AO AS ON ACCO UNT OF DOUBLE CREDIT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE DECLARED AGRICU LTURAL INCOME FOR THE YEAR ( ` 50,000/-), WE CONSIDER AS ESSENTIALLY IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINE D WITHDRAWALS TO THAT EXTENT (REFER PARA 5, PG. 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER). THE BASIS FOR T HE AOS INFERENCE IS THAT THE SAID SUM STANDS ADDED TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT, EVEN AS THE CR EDIT OF ` 50,000/- APPEARS AGAIN IN THE STATEMENT OF SOURCES OF APPLICATION OF FUNDS. HOWEV ER, WE STATE IT AS ESSENTIALLY AGAINST THE REDUCTION IN THE ADMITTED WITHDRAWALS TO THAT E XTENT, AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN SUBJECT TO TAX ON THE BASIS OF ACCRETION TO THE CAP ITAL ACCOUNT, WHILE THE WITHDRAWALS FOR THE YEAR ( ` 3 LACS) ARE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT. T HE DUPLICATION OF CREDIT BY THE ASSESSEE IS, HOWEVER, NOT IN DISPUTE. THE BALANCE A DDITION IS FOR AGRICULTURAL INCOME, WHICH, AS IN THE PAST, STOOD RETURNED FOR THE YEAR AT ` 50,000/-. 5.2 IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) ENDORSED THE FI NDINGS OF THE AO, FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NEITHER BEFORE HIM NOR BEFORE THE ASS ESSING AUTHORITY, BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO EVIDENCE ITS CLAIMS/EXPLANATIONS, SO TH AT THERE WAS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, PASSED AFTER AFFORDING A PROPER A ND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. OF COURSE, HE DISCUSSES THE CASE OF THE A SSESSEE, AS WELL AS THAT OF THE AO, QUA EACH OF THE ADDITIONS UNDER REFERENCE. V.V. SASI V. DY. CIT, ERNAKULAM (ASSTT. YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09) 5 A.Y. 2005-06 6. BOTH THE ASSESSEES AS WELL AS THE REVENUES STA ND FOR THE YEAR IS PRINCIPALLY THE SAME, THE AO CONSIDERING THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE O .D. ACCOUNT, AGGREGATING TO ` 1569500/-, AS UNEXPLAINED, ALBEIT ALLOWING SET OFF AGAINST INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE PER ITS RETURN U/SS. 139 & 153A ( ` 353766/-), I.E., AT ` 12,15,734/-. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE DEPOSITS WERE OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF ITS BRICK AND CRUSHER BUSINESS, WAS REJECTED IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERI AL IN SUPPORT EITHER QUA THE CREDIT SALE OR SALE REALISATION. IN FACT, THE CRUSHER BUSINESS , IT WAS CLARIFIED, BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEES SON, SHRI V.S. SATHEESH AND, THE ASSESSE E HAVING RATHER NOT DECLARED ANY INCOME THERE-FROM PER HIS RETURNS. THE ONLY INTERFA CE THERE-WITH WAS INVESTMENT IN 70 CENTS OF LAND FOR THE SAID (CRUSHER UNIT) SHOWN AT ` 3.35 LAKHS IN THE ASSESSEES STATEMENT OF SOURCES AND APPLICATION OF FUNDS AS ON 31.3.2004 . FURTHER, THE MAJOR EXPENSES OF A CRUSHER UNIT WERE FOR LABOUR, ENGAGED ON DAILY WAGE S BASIS, WHILE THE O.D. ACCOUNT REFLECTS A TOTAL OF 11 ENTRIES FOR ` 5.55 LAKHS, OF WHICH 5 ACCOUNT FOR ` 4.55 LAKHS. A SCRUTINY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT SHOWS PAYMENTS OF `3.6 3 LAKHS TO THE SON, WHILE ANOTHER ` 3.41 LAKHS TO SHAILAJA (WIFE), BIJU, ETC. WHICH WER E NEITHER CRUSHER EXPENSES OR EVEN OTHERWISE EXPLAINED. APART FROM NON-ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME, DECLARED AT ` 50,000/-, THE AO HAS MADE ANOTHER ADDITION OF ` 95,000/- TOWARDS ADMITTED ERROR (DEFICIT) IN THE STATEMENT OF SOURCES OF APPLICATIO N OF FUNDS CONTRIBUTION BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME STOOD CONFIRMED IN APPEAL FOR THE SAME REA SONS, NOTED IN SOME DETAIL BY US FOR THE EARLIER YEARS. A.Y. 2006-07 7. THE ASSESSMENT FOR THIS YEAR IS PRINCIPALLY ON THE SAME LINES. THE AO HAS, IN ADDITION, CONSIDERED PROFIT ON SALE OF LAND AS INCO ME FROM REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, BESIDES BRINGING TO TAX INCOME FROM KURRIES ( ` 134.96 LAKHS) ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF, STATING HIS NON-RETURNING AS DUE TO AN INADVERTENT OMISSION. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT INCLUDED THE ADMITTED GAINS ON THE SALE OF LAND(S) IN HIS RE TURN, CLAIMING IT TO BE AGRICULTURAL LANDS. V.V. SASI V. DY. CIT, ERNAKULAM (ASSTT. YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09) 6 THE LANDS, WHICH WERE ONLY PLOTS OF LAND IN THE VIC INITY OF KOCHI CITY, WERE NOT SUBJECT TO ANY AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY. NOBODY WOULD BUY WITHOU T A PURPOSE. IN THE ASSESSEES CASE, HE ALSO OWNED A HOUSE, AND WOULD PURCHASE AT THE MOST ONE OR TWO PLOTS FOR HIS FAMILY MEMBERS, WHILE HIS STATEMENT ITSELF SHOWS 13 DIFFER ENT PLOTS. THE REAL ESTATE MARKET WAS UP-COMING AND BOOMING, WITH THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF SEV ERAL PROJECTS, AS SMART CITY FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE VICINITY. THE ASSESSEE WAS ACQUIRI NG THESE PROPERTIES ONLY AS STOCK TO BE SOLD AS AND WHEN THE PRICE SUITED HIM. FURTHER, A SPOT VERIFICATION OF THE LAND DEALINGS WERE MADE, AND WERE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN GROSSLY UNDE R-DECLARED. THE SAME WAS ACCORDINGLY BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE AO. IN APPEAL, T HE ASSESSEE SOUGHT TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF REAL ESTATE BUSINESS BY WAY OF AN ADDITIONAL GROUND . THE SAME WAS CONSIDERED ON MERITS, EVEN AS THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THE ASSESSEES CLAIM A S NOT MAINTAINABLE IN TERMS OF THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GOKULDAS & CO ., 253 ITR 633 (RAJ.). IT WAS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN REAL ESTATE BUSINESS; THE ASSE SSEES ACTIVITY, FALLING BOTH WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE TERM BUSINESS AND ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, RELYING ON A HOST OF CASE LAW IN THE MATTER. IN FACT, THE AO HAD OMITTE D TO BRING THE ENTIRE GAINS TO TAX, IN THE WORKING OF WHICH (GAIN) ALSO HE OBSERVED CERTAIN DI SCREPANCIES. ACCORDINGLY, HE ASSESSED THE DIFFERENCE ( ` 885067/-) AS INCOME FROM REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, WITH THE ASSESSEE BEING NOT IN APPEAL IN RESPECT OF THE SAID INCOME. A.Y. 2007-08 8. THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR, AGAIN, FOLLOWS THE SAME COURSE. THE ASSESSEES CASE, WHO PURCHASED AND SOLD TWO AND THREE PIECES OF LAND DURING THE YEAR RESPECTIVELY, I.E., AS IN A.Y. 2006-07, IS ALSO THE SAME. THE SAME STOOD CONFIRMED IN APPEAL, I.E., IN PRINCIPLE, EVEN AS THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE RELIEF TOWARD INCOME ALREADY DECLARED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED CAS H DEPOSITS IN THE ASSESSEES O.D. ACCOUNT AND SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT ( ` 245400/-). A.Y. 2008-09 V.V. SASI V. DY. CIT, ERNAKULAM (ASSTT. YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09) 7 9. WE FIND NO CHANGE FOR THIS YEAR, EXCEPT THAT THE INCOME ON THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTIES, ASSESSED AS FROM REAL ESTATE BUSINES S, STOOD RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. FURTHER, THE LD. CIT(A ) FOUND CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES TO THE EXTENT OF ` 17.20 LAKHS IN THE COMPUTATION OF THE ADMITTED INCO ME INFERRED ON ACCOUNT OF DEFICIENCY IN THE STATEMENT OF SOURCES AND APPLICAT ION OF FUNDS FOR THE YEAR, AND FOR WHICH AN ADDITION OF ` 3481330/- STOOD MADE BY THE AO AND, THEREFORE, ALLO WED THE ASSESSEE RELIEF TO THAT EXTENT. 10. BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEES PRINCIPAL CASE IS THA T THE MANNER IN WHICH THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE AND SUSTAINED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AMOUNT TO A DOUBLE ADDITION(S) INASMUCH AS IT IS THE SAME FUNDS THAT H AVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE ASSESSEES O.D. ACCOUNT THAT ARE BEING SUBJECT TO TAX SEPARATE LY FOR DIFFERENT YEARS. CLEARLY, THERE IS NO WARRANT FOR THE SAME. THE REVENUES CASE IS THAT NO GROUND FOR TELESCOPING IS MADE OUT. JUST BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS UNEXPLAINED DEP OSITS IN THE O.D/SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT FOR DIFFERENT YEARS, THAT WOULD NOT BY ITSELF ENTIT LE IT TO A SET OFF OF EARLIER DEPOSITS AGAINST THE LATTER ONES. THE ASSESSEES CASE ITSELF EXHIBIT S THAT IT HAD UNDISCLOSED INCOME HE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE/S THEREOF. FURTHER, HE ADM ITTED TO REAL ESTATE BUSINESS VIDE HIS DEPOSITION U/S. 132(4) DATED 26.3.2008, WHICH IS AL SO EVIDENT FROM THE MATERIALS FOUND DURING SEARCH. SIMILARLY, THERE IS NOTHING TO SUPP ORT THE CLAIM FOR AGRICULTURAL INCOME, SO THAT THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, HAVE BEEN MADE IN CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AS APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, AND MER IT BEING CONFIRMED. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. 11.1 WE FIRSTLY OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAIS ED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN EACH APPEAL, CONTESTING THE SEPARATE ADDITIONS MADE FOR EACH ASS ESSMENT YEAR. ON MERITS, WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN ACCEPTING THE REVENUES STAND (I.E., PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS FURTHER MODIFIED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY) QUA EACH OF THE ADDITIONS BEING AGITATED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AR E EXPLICIT AND WELL-REASONED, DEALING WITH THE FACTS AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEES CASE QUA THE VARIOUS ISSUES BEING AGITATED; THE V.V. SASI V. DY. CIT, ERNAKULAM (ASSTT. YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09) 8 SAME HAVING NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BEFORE US IN ANY MANNER. WE, ACCORDINGLY, ENDORSE THE SAME, AND DO NOT CONSIDER IT NECESSARY TO RESTA TE THE REASONS, AS IT WOULD ONLY AMOUNT TO A REPETITION [REFER: CIT VS. K.V.PILLAI & SONS (1966) 63 ITR 411(SC)]. 11.2 THE ASSESSEES CASE BEFORE US, HOWEVER, I S PRINCIPALLY ONE OF TELESCOPING, MADE WITH REFERENCE TO A PAPER BOOK (PB) DATED 22.5.2011 (DULY CERTIFIED), CONTAINING 35 PAGES, AND WHICH IS A COMBINED ONE FOR ALL THE YEAR S. THOUGH NO SPECIFIC GROUND TOWARD THE SAME HAS BEEN, WE OBSERVE, RAISED, THE SAME IS ADMITTED UNDER RULE 11 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963, AFTER HEARING T HE REVENUE THEREON. 11.3 ON MERITS, WE FIND SUBSTANCE IN THE ASSES SEES ALTERNATE CLAIM AS TO TELESCOPING. AS AFORE-NOTED, THE ASSESSEE HAS, TOWARD THE SAME, MADE OUT A CHART (PB-II, PG.1) PER WHICH IT CLAIMS THAT AN ADDITION AT AN AGGREGATE OF ONLY ` 6166330/- (I.E., FOR THE SEVEN YEARS A.Y. 2002-03 TO 2008-09) WOULD ARISE. THIS IS FOR THE REASON THAT THOUGH, WITHOUT DOUBT, THE ONUS TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE DEPOSITS SATISFACTORILY IS ONLY ON THE ASSESSEE, THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT (RECEIPT AND PAYMENT ACCOUNT SUBMITTED FOR ALL THE YEARS EXCEPT FOR AY 2005-06, AND WHICH COULD BE AN OMISSION ) AND THE BALANCE SHEET (STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS) FOR EACH OF THE YEARS, BEGIN NING 31.3.2001, FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE (REFER ITS SEPARATE PAPER-BOOK FOR EACH YE AR), IS ONLY TOWARD THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS OPEN FOR THE REVENUE TO CONSIDER IT ON MERITS, AND EITHER REJECT IT OR ACCEPT IT - WITH OR WITHOUT MODIFICATION/S - WHILE IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND NO DISCUSSION WHATSOEVER IN ITS RESPECT IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, AS WOULD ALSO BE APPARENT FROM THE FOREGOING NARRATION OF THE BAC KGROUND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE (REFER PARAS 3 TO 9), SO THAT THERE HAS BE EN NO CONSIDERATION OF THE SAME BY THEM. IN FACT, WE THINK THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF IS ALS O RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAME; THEIR BEING NO SPECIFIC GROUND IN ITS RESPECT, EITHER BEF ORE US OR BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. SO, HOWEVER, THAT WOULD NOT OPERATE TO OUST THE ASSESSEES CASE AT THE THRESHOLD; THE PREMISE OF THE ADDITION/S BEING THAT IT IS ONLY THE UNEXPLAINED FUNDS/INVESTMENTS, I.E., AS TO THEIR NATURE AND SOU RCE, WITH/OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ARE TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX, SO THAT THE CONSIDERATION OF THE SA ME AMOUNTS TO A CONSIDERATION OF THE V.V. SASI V. DY. CIT, ERNAKULAM (ASSTT. YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09) 9 CASE IN ITS PERSPECTIVE. IN FACT, THE REVENUE PART IALLY ACCEPTS THE ASSESSEES CASE, WHEN IT ALLOWS IT A SET OFF OF THE INCOME DECLARED, AS WELL AS THE LOAN/S AVAILED, AS (SAY) FROM SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK (AY 2004-05), AGAINST THE INCOME ASSESSED ON THE BASIS OF THE UNEXPLAINED BANK DEPOSITS, EVEN AS THE SAID CREDITS ARE NOT TOWARD ANY SPECIFI C DEPOSIT/S . IT HAS ALSO BROUGHT THE DEFICIENCY PER THE CASH FLO W STATEMENT (AS ARISING IN DIFFERENT YEARS) TO TAX. AS SUCH, NOT ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEE S CASE, I.E., IN PRINCIPLE, WOULD AMOUNT TO A CONTRADICTION. AGAIN, WE FIND NO REASON FOR WH ILE ACCEPTING THE CLAIM QUA TELESCOPING FOR SOME INCOMES, AS THE BRICK OR CRUSH ER BUSINESS, NOT ACCEPTING IT IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME ARISING ON THE SALE OF LANDS, I.E., T HE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS. IF THE FUNDS FROM ONE SOURCE CAN BE SAID TO BE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASS ESEE FOR BEING DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT/S, WE WONDER WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE SO FOR TH E OTHER SOURCES AS WELL; THE ASSESSEE NOT MAINTAINING ANY REGULAR ACCOUNTS FOR ANY OF THE M, AND IN WHICH CASE THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR TELESCOPING AT ALL. 11.4 CONTINUING FURTHER, THE ONLY CONSEQUENCE OF OU R ACCEPTANCE OF THE ASSESSEES CASE, IN PRINCIPLE THAT IS, IS THAT THE MATTER SHOULD NEC ESSARILY GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR ITS CONSIDERATION ON MERITS. IN THIS REGARD, HOWEVE R, WE HAVE FEW OBSERVATIONS TO MAKE, WHICH WOULD BE RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE, AND WHICH THE REVENUE, ACCORDINGLY, IS REQUIRED TO TAKE NOTE OF: (A) THE SOLE PREMISE FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE CAS H FLOW STATEMENT / BALANCE-SHEET, IS THAT THE SAME CONTAINS THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF EITHER TH E ASSETS OR THE LIABILITIES AT THE END OF EACH YEAR, SO THAT THE ADDITION IN ANY YEAR MUST NE CESSARILY BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE HIGHER OF THE TWO, AND NOT BOTH, AND WHICH POSSIBIL ITY CANNOT BE EXCLUDED WITHOUT BOTH OF THEM, REPRESENTING THE TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN, BEING SIMULTANEOUSLY CONSIDERED. AS SUCH, IT IS ESSENTIALLY A CORRECTION EXERCISE , SO AS TO AVOID THE POSSIBILITY OF ANY DUPLICATION OR EVEN MULTIPLICATION OF ADDITION/S IN THE ABSENCE OF MAINTENANCE OF REGULAR ACCOUNTS BY THE ASSESSEE. AS A DIRECT COROLLARY, T HE ASSESSEE SHOULD EXERCISE DUE CARE TO SEE THAT EITHER OF THE TWO LISTS - ASSETS OR LIABIL ITIES - AS AT THE EACH YEAR-END, IS COMPLETE, DULY CERTIFYING THE SAME. NEEDLES TO ADD, WHEN WE SAY LIABILITIES, WE ONLY IMPLY PROVED LIABILITIES. ALSO, IT IS OPEN FOR THE REVENUE TO V ERIFY THE SAME, SO AS TO SATISFY ITSELF WITH REGARD TO ITS CORRECTNESS AND COMPLETENESS; AND FOR WHICH PURPOSE THE TRANSACTIONS FOR EVEN THE SUBSEQUENT PERIOD COULD BE LOOKED INTO, AN D WHICH WOULD THUS CONFIRM THE EXISTENCE OR OTHERWISE OF THE ASSET/S AT AN EARLIER DATE. AGAIN, NEEDLES TO ADD, THE V.V. SASI V. DY. CIT, ERNAKULAM (ASSTT. YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09) 10 COMPLETENESS AND CORRECTNESS OF THIS LIST IS VITAL TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM/S. IN THIS REGARD WE RATHER FIND THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE FURNISHED THE STATEMENT OF ITS AFFAIRS AS ON 31/1/2011 (AT PG. 30 / PB FOR AY 2007 -08), REFLECTING GROSS ASSETS AND LIABILITIES AT ` 130.28 LACS AND ` 49.67 LACS RESPECTIVELY, SO THAT THE CAPITAL BALANC E IS AT ` 80.61 LACS. ALSO, THE FIGURES ADOPTED WOULD BE AS C ONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A), EVEN AS WE HAVE ALSO OBSERVED A CASE OF AN ARITHMETICAL MIS TAKE (AY 2004-05). (B) THE ASSESSEE STATES PER HIS STATEMENT U/S. 132 (4) (AT PB PG. 6(A) TO 6(E)/A.Y. 2002- 03) THAT HE DERIVES INCOME FROM METAL CRUSHER UNIT, BRICK BUSINESS, AND HIRE CHARGES OF VEHICLES, BESIDES AGRICULTURAL INCOME. HOWEVER, NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THESE BUSINESSES ARE MAINTAINED. THE TWO BRICK UNITS, CRU SHER UNIT AS WELL AS THE MAJORITY OF THE VEHICLES, WHICH INCLUDE 8 TIPPERS, ARE IN THE NAME OF HIS SON, V.S. SATHEESH. IN ADDITION, HE ADMITS, AND WHICH IS ALSO APPARENT FROM THE ORDE RS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, AS WELL AS BORNE OUT BY THE ASSESSEES RECEIPT AND PAYMENT (R& P) ACCOUNT, PARTICULARLY FOR THE LATER YEARS, TO BEING ENGAGED IN THE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS . THE SAME IS, AGAIN, PRINCIPALLY UNACCOUNTED. NO EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE AGRICUL TURAL ACTIVITY OR INCOME HAS BEEN FURNISHED, SO THAT THE CLAIM IN ITS RESPECT HAS BEE N, AGAIN, RIGHTLY NOT ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE. BESIDES INVESTMENT IN PERSONAL ASSETS, WE FIND INVESTMENT IN KURRIES, TWO RICE MILLS, ETC, ESTIMATED INCOME/DRAWINGS FROM WHICH ST AND INCLUDED AS ITEMS OF CASH INFLOW (RECEIPT). WE MAY CLARIFY THAT EXCEPT WHERE AND TO THE EXTENT BORNE OUT BY DULY MAINTAINED AND VERIFIED ACCOUNTS, KEPT IN THE REGUL AR COURSE OF BUSINESS, DULY AUTHENTICATED, SO THAT THE SAME IS ON THE BASIS OF VERIFIABLE RECORDS, WE DO NOT THINK THAT IT WOULD BE PROPER TO CONSIDER SEPARATELY THE CASH INF LOW ARISING OR CLAIMED TO BE ARISING FROM SUCH SOURCE/S, I.E., IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMEN T. THAT IS, RATHER THAN BEING ACCREDITED TO SUCH UNVERIFIABLE SOURCE/S, THE SHORTFALL IN CAS H IN ANY YEAR MAY QUITE SIMPLY BE STATED AS DEFICIENCY OR `FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCES. THI S IS AS ONCE THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR DETERMINATION OF INCOME ON THE BASIS OF THE CASH FL OW STATEMENT IS ACCEPTED, THE SOURCE BECOMES LARGELY IRRELEVANT. (C) THE DEFICIENCY FOR EACH YEAR IS TO BE WORKED OU T WITH REFERENCE TO THE PEAK VALUE, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT OBTAIN AS AT THE YEAR-END. THE REASON IS OBVIOUS; THE SAME REPRESENTING THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF SHORTFALL TOWARD THE DIFFERENT EXPENSES/INVESTMENTS, AND WHICH MAY OTHERWISE NOT GET REFLECTED IN THE AN NUALIZED STATEMENT. ALSO, THIS WOULD NOT ENTAIL MUCH PROBLEM AS THE NUMBER OF DEPOSITS I N THE O.D. ACCOUNT, WHICH IS THE ONLY CURRENT ACCOUNT, AS WE GATHER, BEING MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, ARE FEW AND FAR IN BETWEEN. IT IS ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO THESE DATES, OR THOSE AT WHICH THERE IS SOME APPRECIABLE MOVEMENT IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT/S, THAT THE PEAK CREDIT, I.E., DEFICIENCY, HAS TO BE CONSIDERED. THE INVESTMENT IN LANDS AND T HE PROCEEDS ARISING ON THEIR SALE DURING ANY YEAR WOULD HAVE ALSO TO BE CONSIDERED WI TH REFERENCE TO THEIR RESPECTIVE DATES AND, FURTHER, AT THE AMOUNTS AS ACCEPTED BY THE REV ENUE. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PEAK VALUE OF THE DEFICIENCY/SHORTFALL AND THAT AS AT TH E YEAR-END MAY BE ADJUSTED BY AN ENTRY DEFICIENCY ADJUSTED AS AN ITEM OF CASH OUTFLOW ON THE PAYMENT SIDE OF THE R&P STATEMENT. THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND, HAS REFLECTED TH E APPLICATION OF THE CASH AVAILABLE IN V.V. SASI V. DY. CIT, ERNAKULAM (ASSTT. YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09) 11 SUCH UNEXPLAINED AVENUES OF INVESTMENT, AS OBTAININ G AT THE YEAR-END, AS `CASH/STOCK, WHICH VALUES ` 43.18 LAKHS AS ON 31.3.2008. OF COURSE, ONCE FUNDS TO A PARTICULAR EXTENT, BASED ON THE MAXIMUM SHORTFALL, HAVE BEEN CONSIDERE D, THE SAME WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. THAT IS, ITS EXPLANATI ON FOR THE SUBSEQUENT PERIOD (THE BEGINNING OF THE NEXT YEAR) MAY BE CONSIDERED AT TH E ENHANCED AMOUNT, THE EXCESS BEING TAKEN AS CASH/STOCK. WHILE WE SAY SO, WE MAY ADD TH AT IN ALL PROBABILITY THE BALANCE IN THE DEFICIENCY (UNEXPLAINED) ACCOUNT AS ON 31/3 (WH ICH MAY BE TRANSFERRED TO THE CAPITAL A/C ON 1/4, SO AS TO FORM PART OF THE EXPLAINED CAP ITAL FOR THE FOLLOWING YEAR) WOULD REPRESENT ITS PEAK VALUE. THIS IS AS THE ASSESSEE I S IN PROFIT/SURPLUS, SO THAT ITS FIGURE AS ON 31/3, I.E., THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR, WOULD REPRESENT THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OBTAINING FOR THE YEAR. AND, THE PROFIT RESULTS IN A CONCOMITANT ACCR ETION TO CAPITAL/ASSET BASE. INCURRING A LOSS, SO THAT THE PROFIT FOR THE YEAR IS LESS THAN THAT OBTAINING DURING THE MID YEAR, IS, AS WE SEE IT, ALMOST NEGLIGENT. OF COURSE, OUR FOREGOING OBSERVATION IS SUBJECT TO SOME EXCEPTIONS, AND THERE COULD BE INSTANCES OF ADJUSTM ENT OF DEFICIENCY, AS (SAY) WHERE AN UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT WHICH IS THEREFORE TO BE T REATED AS `CASH/STOCK IS FINANCED FROM OD A/C, WHICH IS NEUTRALIZED OR ADJUSTED TO SO ME EXTENT BY 31/3, SO THAT IT CARRIES A LOWER BALANCE (CREDIT) AS AT THE YEAR-END. (D) APART FROM THE FOREGOING GENERAL OBSERVATIONS, OUR PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF THE `CASH FLOW AND THE `STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS STATEMEN TS REVEAL THE SAME TO BEAR THE FOLLOWING INFIRMITIES/INCONSISTENCIES, WHICH WOULD NEED TO BE REMOVED/ADDRESSED:- (I) CAPITAL AS AT THE END OF EACH YEAR IS NOT RECO NCILED AS THAT AT THE BEGINNING THEREOF, AND WHICH ONLY WOULD ENSURE ITS VERACITY, I.E., THAT THE SAME EMANATES AS A RESULT OF THE REPORTED CASH FLOW (AS PER THE R&P AC COUNT). A READY/SUGGESTED FORMAT FOR THE PURPOSE IS ENCLOSED BY WAY OF ANNEXU RE A TO THIS ORDER. IN ADDITION, THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT FOR EACH ACCOUNT WO ULD ONLY ENSURE THAT ITS BALANCE (AS AT THE YEAR END) MATCHES WITH THE CASH FLOW (R& P) STATEMENT. AND, FURTHER, THAT THERE IS NO OMISSION IN TAKING A PARTICULAR ACCOUNT IN DRAWING THE BALANCE SHEET (STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS) AT THE YEAR-END. WE MAY CLARIFY THAT NO ISSUE AS TO WHETHER A PARTICULAR RECEIPT OR ITEM OF CASH INFLOW IS `EXPLA INED OR `UNEXPLAINED COULD ARISE, WITH WE HAVING ALREADY CONFIRMED THE DECISIO N QUA THE SAME BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY . (II) THE NET ACCRETION TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT DURI NG THE PERIOD 1.4.2001 TO 31.3.2008 (AS PER THE BALANCE SHEETS SUBMITTED) IS AS ` 136.35 LACS ( ` 14517572 - ` 882084) DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE INCOME THAT THE ASS ESSEE STATES WOULD STAND TO BE ASSESSED IN AGGREGATE, FOR THIS PERIOD, I.E., ` 6166330/-. THAT IS, EVEN CONSIDERING THAT ALL THE LIABILITIES AS REFLECTED I N THE BALANCE SHEET/S ARE ESTABLISHED /PROVED, THE SAME DO NOT EXPLAIN THE ADMITTED NET A CCRETION TO THE ASSETS OVER THIS PERIOD. IN FACT, THE GAP WOULD BE EVEN HIGHER, CONS IDERING THAT THE WITHDRAWALS FOR V.V. SASI V. DY. CIT, ERNAKULAM (ASSTT. YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09) 12 PERSONAL EXPENSES, LIC PAYMENTS, MARRIAGE EXPENSES, ETC. BEING IRRETRIEVABLY LOST, DEPLETE THE CAPITAL (AS BEING ACCOUNTED/RECKONED) T O THAT EXTENT. THIS FURTHER EMPHASISES THE NEED FOR RECONCILIATION REFERRED TO EARLIER. (III) THE O.D. ACCOUNT HAS A BALANCE OF ` 6.72 LAKHS AS ON 31.3.2002. THE SAME WOULD OSTENSIBLY BE ONLY AGAINST SOME ASSET(S), FDR (S), ETC. IN FACT, THERE HAS BEEN AN INCREASE IN THE O.D. LIMIT, OR ITS AVAILMEN T IN THE LATER YEARS, SO THAT THIS ASPECT SHALL HAVE TO BE EXAMINED WITH RESPECT TO TH E SECURITY(S) AS OBTAINING FROM TIME TO TIME. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE CASH DEPOSITS TO THE EXTENT OF ` 18.01 LAKHS IN OD A/C DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT T O AY 2004-05 AS BY WAY OF CLOSURE OF FD A/CS, ALSO FURNISHING THEIR NUMBERS, EVEN THOUGH SUCH CLOSURE IS GENERALLY BY WAY OF A TRANSFER TO THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT ONLY. A TABULATION OF FDS, OUTSTANDING AT THE END OF EACH YEAR WOULD BE U SEFUL AND RELEVANT; WITH WE FINDING FD APPEARING AS AN ASSET ONLY IN ONE BALANC E-SHEET, I.E., AS ON 31/3/2003, FOR ` 7 LAKHS. LIKEWISE, WITH REGARD TO THE CONFIRMATION AS WELL AS SECURITIZATION FOR THE AGRICULTURAL LOAN OF ` 25 LAKHS AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IV) THE ASSESSEE, AS APPARENT FROM HIS STATEMENT U/S.132(4) AS WELL AS THE CASH FLOW STATEMENTS, IS PARTICIPATING IN SEVERAL KURRIE S/CHITTIES. THE SAME SHALL HAVE TO BE DULY FACTORED INTO, ALSO CONSIDERING THE VARIATI ON IN THE TOTAL SUBSCRIPTION PAID AND THE SALA (PRIZE MONEY) NET OF FOREMAN COMMISSION. V) SIMILARLY, ALL THE BANK ACCOUNTS (REFER ANSWER T O Q. NO. 4) ARE NOT CO-OPTED IN THE ANNUAL STATEMENTS; ALSO THE ASSESSEES WIFE HAS NO SEPARATE SOURCE OF INCOME, AS IT APPEARS TO BE THE CASE THE INVESTMENT/S IN HER NAME (VIZ. RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, MARUTI ZEN CAR) HAVING BEEN INCLUDED BY THE ASSESSE E IN HIS CASH FLOW STATEMENT HER ACCOUNTS WOULD ALSO STAND TO BE INCLUDED THEREI N. VI). THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSES A WITHDRAWAL OF ` 3.0 LACS FROM THE BRICK BUSINESS DURING AY 2004-05, WHILE THE BALANCE SHEET DOES NOT REFLECT ANY INVESTMENT THEREIN. IT IS THIS BALANCE, RATHER THAN THE CASH B ALANCE IN THE BOOKS OF THE BRICK BUSINESS, THAT SHOULD FORM PART OF, AND REFLECTION IN, THE ASSSESSEES EACH SUCCESSIVE BALANCE SHEET. LIKE-WISE, FOR OTHER CONF IRMED APPLICATION AND SOURCES OF FUNDS. 12. WITH THE FOREGOING OBSERVATIONS/FINDINGS, WE RESTORE THE APPEALS BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO, FOR MODIFICATION OF THE ASSESSMENT IN LIGHT THEREOF, WHILE THE ONUS TO ESTABLISH HIS CASE WOULD BE SQUARELY ON THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, AS WE HAVE ACCEPTED THE REVENUES CASE IN PRINCIPLE, CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED ORDER/S, THE SAME WOULD NOT STAND SET ASIDE NOR THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW STAND VACATED, AS WOULD NORMALLY BE THE RESULT OF SUCH V.V. SASI V. DY. CIT, ERNAKULAM (ASSTT. YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09) 13 RESTORATION, BUT AFFIRMED. THE RESTORATION TO THE A O IS THUS IN THE NATURE OF A REMAND, WITH THE ASSESSEES ALTERNATE GROUND OF TELESCOPING BEFO RE US ITSELF LEADING TO AN ADDITION OVER AND ABOVE THE INCOME RETURNED, WITH THE VIEW TO ASC ERTAIN THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT. NEEDLESS TO ADD, THE ADJUDICATION WOULD BE PER A SP EAKING ORDER AND AFTER ALLOWING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE TO BE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SD/- SD/- (N.VIJAYAKUMARAN) (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: ERNAKULAM DATED: 24TH AUGUST, 2011 GJ COPY TO: 1. V.V.SASI, VELLAYIKULAM HOUSE, SREEMOOLANAGARAM P .O., VELLARAPPILLY, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL C IRCLE-1, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, KOCH I. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL, KOCHI. 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE . ENCL: ANNEXURES A1 THROUGH A3. NOTE: 1. ANNEXURES A1 TO A3 FORM AN INTEGRAL PART OF THIS OR DER. V.V. SASI V. DY. CIT, ERNAKULAM (ASSTT. YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09) 14 ANNEXURE A1 RECEIPT & PAYMENT FOR THE YE AR ENDING 31/3/ TO OPG. BAL. BY WITHDRAWALS - CASH/STOCK - S/BANK A/CS - OTHERS BY OUTFLOW TO CAPITAL INFLOW O.D. A/C (#) A EXPLAINED S/B A/C O.D. A/C (#) INVESTMENTS S/B A/CS I1 (*) OTHERS * I2 I3 B UNEXPLAINED OD A/C DEFICIENCY ADJUSTED S/B A/C OTHERS * REVENUE A/C CLG. BALANCE EXP. SOURCES OD A/C UNEXP. SOURCES S/B A/CS CASH/STOCK TOTAL _________ TOTAL___________ _________ ___________ (#) TO MATCH WITH THE CREDITS AND DEBITS, AS THE CASE MAY BE, IN THE OD A/C. (*) BY NAME V.V. SASI V. DY. CIT, ERNAKULAM (ASSTT. YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09) 15 AN NEXURE A2 STATEMENT OF A FFAIRS AS ON 31/3 CAPITAL ASSETS LIABILITIES EXPLAINED (DEPOSIT) UNEXPLAINED (DEPOSIT) TOTAL ___________ TOTAL ___________ ____________ ___________ A NNEXURE A3 CAPI TAL RECONCILIATION (FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31/3/ ) 1. OPG. BAL. (AS ON 1/4 2. ADDITIONS - EXPLAINED - UNEXPLAINED (#) 3. DELETIONS - DEFICIENCY ADJUSTED - BY NAME 4. CLOSING BAL. AS ON 31/3 (1 + 2 - 3) (*) (#) TO MATCH OR RECONCILE WITH THE INCOME ASSESS ED FOR THE YEAR (*) TO AGREE WITH THE BALANCE IN THE BALANCE SHEE T V.V. SASI V. DY. CIT, ERNAKULAM (ASSTT. YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09) 16