ACIT, CHENNAI V. Vijaya Inbasagaran, CHENNAI

ITA 847/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9760 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 1994-1995
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T R SENTHIL KUMAR SR
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Depreciation; Income from undisclosed sources; Deemed dividend

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . !' , # $ % [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO.847/MDS/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1994-95 THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE XIV CHENNAI VS. SMT. VIJAYA INBASAGARAN NO.2, 10 TH STREET T -62, ANNA NAGAR CHENAI 600 040 [PAN AAAPI 2437 F ] ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI T.R.SENTHIL KUMAR, SR. STANDING COUNSEL /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE / DATE OF HEARING : 25 - 02 - 2016 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 0 1 - 04 - 2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-IV, CHENN AI, DATED 20.12.2012 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95 . 2. SHRI T.R.SENTHIL KUMAR, SR. STANDING COUNSEL FOR TH E DEPARTMENT SUBMITTED THAT THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEA L IS WITH REGARD TO UNACCOUNTED CREDIT BALANCE OF ` 4,62,218/-. ACCORDING TO THE SR. ITA NO. 847/13 :- 2 -: STANDING COUNSEL, THE UNACCOUNTED SALES SAID TO BE MADE BY TWO COMPANIES WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY DOCUMENTARY EVI DENCE. THE CIT(A), BY PLACING HIS RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THI S TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94, AL LOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE SR. STANDING CO UNSEL, THE REVENUE HAS ALREADY FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE HIGH COURT AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94, THEREFORE, TH E MATTER IS NOW SUBJUDICE BEFORE THE HIGH COURT, HENCE, AT THIS STA GE ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI S.SRIDHAR, LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE RE WAS A SUNDRY CREDIT OF M/S AVJ MARKETING SERVICES AS ON 31.3.198 4. THE SUNDRY CREDITORS ARE M/S SILVER SHOES P. LTD AND M/S SOUTH ERN RIMS P. LTD TO THE EXTENT OF ` 16,20,151/-. HOWEVER, AS ON 31.3.1993 THE CREDIT W AS ` 11,57,922/-, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREAT ED THE DIFFERENCE OF ` 4,62,218/- AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE CREDIT BALANCES OF THE TWO COMPANIES WERE ADDED IN THE ASSESSMENT OF 1993-94 AND THE SAME WAS DELETED BY THE ITAT. NOW, THE REVENUE HAS FILED APPEAL AGAINST TH E ORDER OF ITAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95. SINCE SIMILAR ADDITIO N MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 WAS D ELETED BY THIS ITA NO. 847/13 :- 3 -: TRIBUNAL AND THE MATTER IS PENDING BEFORE THE HIGH COURT, MAKING FURTHER ADDITION IN THIS CASE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND SUNDRY CREDIT TO THE EXTENT OF ` 16,20,151/-. HOWEVER, IN THE BOOKS IT WAS REFLECTED ONLY ` 11,57,933/-. THE DIFFERENCE OF ` 4,62,218/- WAS ADDED UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94. HOWEVER, THIS TRIBUNAL DE LETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NOW THE REVENUE CLA IMS THAT THE APPEAL IS PENDING BEFORE THE HIGH COURT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION MADE FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT WHEN SIMILAR ADDITION WAS DELETED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIE R ASSESSMENT YEAR, MAKING THE SAME ADDITION FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS CONFIR MED. 5. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO UNACCOU NTED CASH RECEIVED TO THE EXTENT OF ` 7,20,128/-. 6. SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, SR. STANDING COUNSEL FOR T HE DEPARTMENT SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVE D CASH TO THE EXTENT OF ` 7,20,128/- FROM TWO COMPANIES. FROM THE CASH FLOW ITA NO. 847/13 :- 4 -: STATEMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF ` 21,40,283/- FROM TWO COMPANIES AND REPAID TO THE E XTENT OF ` 9,57,937/-, LEAVING A CREDIT BALANCE OF ` 11,83,346/- WITH THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE SR. STANDING COUNSEL, THIS AMOUNT OF ` 11,82,346/- IS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, REDUCED ` 4,62,218/- FROM THE CREDIT BALANCE REMAINED WITH THE ASSESSEE AT ` 11,82,346/- AND THE BALANCE OF ` 7,20,128/- WAS BROUGHT TO TAXATION. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. THE SR. STANDI NG COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF RULE 46A IN ADMITTING NEW MATERIAL BY THE CIT(A). 7. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI S.SRIDHR, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ADMITTEDLY, THERE WAS A CREDIT BALAN CE OF ` 16,20,151/- IN THE NAME OF TWO COMPANIES. THE DIFFERENCE OF CL OSING BALANCE BETWEEN 31.3.1993 AND 31.3.1994 WAS ADDED TO THE TO TAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER MADE A SIMILAR ADDITION OF ` 11,57,933/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THIS TRIBUNAL DELETED THE ADDITION. REFERRING TO THE UNACCOUNTED SALES OFFERED TO TAXATION IN THE HANDS OF THE RESPECTIVE COMPANIES, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THA T THE SOURCE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS EXPLAINED AS RECEIPT FRO M THE TWO COMPANIES. SINCE THIS AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM THE TWO COMPANIES, ITA NO. 847/13 :- 5 -: THE SOURCE FOR THE CASH IS THE AMOUNT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. THE CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION AND THE ASSETS WERE SEPARATELY DEALT WITH WHILE ASSESSING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, NO SEPARATE ADDITION WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE AS DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT NO ADDITIONAL MATERIAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A), THEREFORE, TH ERE IS NO VIOLATION OF RULE 46A. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND ` 11,82,346/- AS UNACCOUNTED SALES AND AFTER REDUCING ` 4,62,218/-, HE MADE ADDITION OF ` 7,20,128/-. THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE SOURCE FOR CREDIT IS THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM T HE TWO COMPANIES. THE CASH FOUND AND ASSETS WERE ASSESSED SEPARATELY. THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY FUND THAT THERE IS NO NEED FOR MAKING ANY S EPARATE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPT OF ` 11,82,346/-. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 9. NOW COMING TO THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL WITH REGARD TO UNACCOUNTED CASH OF ` 29 LAKHS, THE SR. STANDING COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT A SUM OF ` 29 LAKHS WAS DELETED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE GROUND T HAT ITA NO. 847/13 :- 6 -: THE SAME WAS OFFERED IN THE HANDS OF THE TWO COMPAN IES. ACCORDING TO THE SR. STANDING COUNSEL, A SUM OF ` 29 LAKHS WAS FOUND IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DIRECTOR OF THE COM PANY HAS NOT REPAID THE MONEY AND CONTINUED TO ENJOY THE CASH AN D INVESTED IN VARIOUS PROPERTIES, THEREFORE, IT HAS TO BE ASSESSE D ONLY IN THE HANDS OF THE DIRECTOR AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE COMPANY. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL THAT THE MONEY BELONGS TO THE TWO COMP ANIES, THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. REFERRING TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MURUGESA NAICKER MANSION, 224 ITR 461, THE SR. S TANDING COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OBLIGED TO TAX WHICH IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THEREFORE, THE C IT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. 10. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI S.SRIDHAR, LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATI ON ` 29 LAKHS WAS FOUND IN THE BED ROOM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSES SEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE CASH REPRESEN TS THE SALES OF M/S SILVER SHOES P. LTD AND M/S SOUTHERN RIMS P. LTD. SINCE THE MONEY WAS FOUND IN THE BED ROOM OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TREATED THE SAME AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN DURING EXAMINATION U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE M ADE SUCH EXPLANATION. AN AFFIDAVIT WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO. 847/13 :- 7 -: SINCE THE SOURCE OF THE FUND IS CASH SALES OF THE T WO COMPANIES, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE SAME HAS TO BE AD DED ONLY IN THE HANDS OF THE SAID COMPANIES AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY FOUND THAT THE AD DITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY INVOKING SEC. 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 11. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CASH FOU ND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION WAS NEITHER RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE NOR UTILIZED BY THE ASSES SEE IN ANY MANNER. THE ASSESSEE BEING ONE OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMP ANY, MONEY WAS AVAILABLE IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREF ORE, ADDITION, IF AT ALL TO BE MADE, IT HAS TO BE MADE ONLY IN THE HANDS OF THE ABOVE TWO COMPANIES AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. DU RING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION A SUM OF ` 29 LAKHS WAS FOUND IN THE BED ROOM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER THAT THE SAID MONEY REPRESENTS THE UNACCOUNTED CASH SALE S OF M/S SILVER SHOES P. LTD AND M/S SOUTHERN RIMS P. LTD. THE AS SESSEE DECLARED A SUM OF ` 70 LAKHS U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF TH E CASH AND OTHER ASSETS FOUND. IN THE INITIAL PART OF THE STA TEMENT U/S 132(4) IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE A STATEMENT THAT TH E MONEY BELONGS ITA NO. 847/13 :- 8 -: TO HER. HOWEVER, IN THE VERY SAME STATEMENT, THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY EXPLAINED THAT THE CASH FOUND REPRESENTS THE UNACCO UNTED SALE OF THE ABOVESAID TWO COMPANIES. RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW THAT THE UNACCOUNTED CASH SALES OF THE TWO COMPANIES WAS KEP T IN THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT IS OBVIO US THAT THE SOURCE OF THE MONEY FOUND IN THE BED ROOM OF THE ASSESSEE DU RING THE SEARCH OPERATION IS THE UNACCOUNTED SALES MADE BY THE ABOV ESAID TWO COMPANIES. THE CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEAR CH OPERATION WAS ALSO OFFERED AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE TWO COMP ANIES. THE ONLY CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE NOW BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS THAT THE INCOME HAS TO BE ASSESSED IN THE RIGHT PERSON. 13. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENT OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MURUGESA NAICKER MANSION( SUPRA). NO DOUBT, THE TAX HAS TO BE LEVIED ON THE RIGHT PERSON ON THE RIGHT INCOME. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS N O OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME OTHER THAN THE SALES MADE BY THE ABOVE TWO C OMPANIES. THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE DIRECTOR, THEREFORE, IT IS O BVIOUS THAT THE MONEY KEPT IN THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN HER CAPA CITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE TWO COMPANIES BELONGS TO THOSE COMPANIES. THER EFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE RIGH T PERSON IS THE TWO COMPANIES AND NOT THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE CI T(A) HAS RIGHTLY ITA NO. 847/13 :- 9 -: DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 14. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO INVESTM ENT OF ` 9 LAKHS IN FLAT. 15. SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, SR. STANDING COUNSEL FOR T HE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT DURING EXAMINATION U/S 132( 4) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED TO THE AUTHORITIES THAT SHE INVE STED A SUM OF ` 9 LAKHS FOR PURCHASING FLAT. THE SR. STANDING COUNSE L CLARIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID ` 9 LAKHS IN CASH AND ` 1 LAKH BY CHEQUE. THE TOTAL PAYMENT WAS ` 10 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE RETRACTED THE STATEMENT M ADE U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT BY WAY OF AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 30.12.1993. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE AMOUNT OF ` 9 LAKHS PAID BY CASH WAS RETURNED BY THE PROMOTER TO SHRI RAJASANKAR, SON-IN -LAW OF THE ASSESSEE ON 21.7.1993. ACCORDING TO THE SR. STANDI NG COUNSEL, THE ABOVE AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER A GAP OF 3 YEARS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO OCCASION TO EXAMINE TH E VERACITY OF THE STATEMENT MADE IN THE AFFIDAVIT. THE CIT(A), WITHO UT ANY FURTHER VERIFICATION, FOUND THAT THE PROMOTER OF THE FLAT M ADE A STATEMENT BEFORE THE COURT THAT THE INITIAL AMOUNT RECEIVED T O THE EXTENT OF ` 10 LAKHS AS ADVANCE TOWARDS SALE OF FLAT WAS RETURNED TO THE EXTENT OF ` 9 ITA NO. 847/13 :- 10 -: LAKHS TO ONE SHRI RAJASANKAR, SON-IN-LAW OF THE AS SESSEE ON 21.7.1993. AFTER PLACING RELIANCE ON THE STATEMENT MADE BEFORE THE COURT, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. ACCORDING TO THE SR. STANDING COUNSEL, THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE PROMOTER OF THE FLAT IS NOT AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 16. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI S.SRIDHAR, LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE A STATEMENT U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO.7 THAT SHE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASING A FLAT FOR ` 18 LAKHS, OF WHICH A SUM OF ` 10 LAKHS WAS PAID IN ADVANCE. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT A SUM OF ` 1 LAKHS WAS PAID BY CHEQUE. THE REMAINING ADVANCE OF ` 9 LAKHS WAS PAID BY CASH. THIS STATEMENT MADE U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT W AS RETRACTED BY FILING AN AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF IN COME-TAX(INV.) ON 30.12.1993. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASS ESSEE HAS MADE A CATEGORICAL STATEMENT IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT THE BUI LDER REPAID A SUM OF ` 9 LAKHS PAID IN CASH AS ADVANCE TO SHRI RAJASANKAR, SON-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE ON 21.7.1993. THIS AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED BE FORE THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(INV.) WHO EXAMINED THE ASSE SSEE U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, IT IS FOR THE ASST. DIRECTO R OF INCOME-TAX(INV.) TO MAKE FURTHER INVESTIGATION, IF NECESSARY, OR FORWAR D THE SAME TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A REQUEST TO MAKE FURTHER IN VESTIGATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME- TAX(INV.) FAILED TO ITA NO. 847/13 :- 11 -: MAKE ANY FURTHER INVESTIGATION ON THE BASIS OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) BY CONSIDERING THE AFFIDAVIT AND THE DEPOSITION MADE BY THE PROMOTER OF THE FLAT BEFORE THE COURT, CONCLUDED THAT A SUM OF ` 9 LAKHS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE BY CASH TOWARDS ADVANCE WAS RETURNED TO SHRI RAJASANKAR, SO N-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE ON 21.7.1993. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAS R IGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. DU RING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE WAS EXAMINED U/S 132(4) OF T HE ACT. IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO.7, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT SHE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF A FLAT FOR A TOTA L CONSIDERATION OF ` 18 LAKHS, OUT OF WHICH A SUM OF ` 1 LAKHS WAS PAID IN CHEQUE AND ANOTHER SUM OF ` 9 LAKHS WAS PAID IN CASH. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT RETRACTING THE EARLIER STATEMENT AND CLAIMED THAT THE SUM OF ` 9 LAKHS WAS RETURNED BY THE PROMOTER ON 21.7.1993. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE RETRACTED STATEM ENT ON THE GROUND THAT THIS WAS GIVEN AFTER A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE OFF ICERS OF THE INTELLIGENCE AUTHORITIES CONDUCTED AN ENQUIRY WITH PROMOTER OF THE FLAT AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ADVANCE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IS ` 1 LAKHS AND NOT ` 10 LAKHS. IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ITA NO. 847/13 :- 12 -: ASSESSEES HUSBAND FOR POSSESSION OF DISPROPORTIONA TE ASSETS, THE PROMOTER OF THE FLAT WAS EXAMINED AS ONE OF THE WIT NESS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THE HIGH COURT AND SUP REME COURT HELD THAT THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND DID NOT POSSESS DISPRO PORTIONATE ASSETS BASED UPON THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE PROMOTER OF TH E FLAT. THEREFORE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE DEPOSITION MADE B Y THE PROMOTER BEFORE THE COURT IN THE CRIMINAL TRIAL WAS ACTED UP ON BY THE HIGH COURT AND SUPREME COURT AND IT WAS FOUND THAT ` 9 LAKHS SAID TO BE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS PART OF THE D ISPROPORTIONATE ASSETS OF THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND. THEREFORE, THI S TRIBUNAL HAS NO REASON TO REJECT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT A SUM OF ` 9 LAKHS WAS RETURNED TO THE SON-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE ON 21 .7.1993. THE CIT(A), IN FACT, PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE DEPOSIT ION MADE BY THE PROMOTER OF THE FLAT AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THA T A SUM OF ` 9 LAKHS WAS RETURNED TO SHRI RAJASANKAR, SON-IN-LAW O F THE ASSESSEE ON 21.7.1993. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE AD DITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY R EASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY , THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 18. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO UNACCOU NTED INVESTMENT TO THE EXTENT OF ` 9.10 LAKHS. ITA NO. 847/13 :- 13 -: 19. SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, SR. STANDING COUNSEL FOR T HE DEPARTMENT SUBMITTED THAT A SUM OF ` 9,10,000/- WAS ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO.1 0. ACCORDING TO THE SR. STANDING COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE VARIOU S INVESTMENTS AND ADVANCES DURING THE BLOCK PERIOD. THE ASSESSEE EX PLAINED BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES THAT 54 CENTS OF LAND WAS PURCH ASED AT VANAGRAM IN THE NAME OF SHRI RAJASANKAR, SON-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINED THAT AN ADVANCE OF ` 1 LAKHS WAS GIVEN TO SHRI KADER BATCHA ON 31.3.1989. THE ASSESSEE ALSO ADMI TTED THAT SHARES TO THE EXTENT OF ` 30,000/- WAS PURCHASED IN R.R. MEDI PHARMA IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEES DAUGHTER SMT. ANANDI. ADVANCES WERE ALSO MADE IN M/S AVJ MARKETING SERVICES TO THE EXTENT OF ` 4 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE FURTHER INVESTMENT IN M/S SOUTHER N RIMS P. LTD IN THE NAME OF SHRI PREMAKUMAR AND SP DHANDAPANI ASSOC IATES TO THE EXTENT OF ` 50,000/- EACH. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTRIBUTED ` 2 LAKHS WITH MARUDAPANDI CHIT FUNDS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALS O ADVANCED ` 2.50 LAKHS BY CASH TO M/S SILVER SHOES P. LTD. FOR PURCH ASE OF MACHINERY. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INCOME RE PRESENTED THE SALES MADE BY THE TWO COMPANIES AND THE SAME WAS AL READY CONSIDERED FOR TAXATION WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HA S RECEIVED MONEY ITA NO. 847/13 :- 14 -: FROM THE COMPANIES, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT WOULD COME INTO OPERATION. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF ` 9,10,000/- WAS RIGHTLY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A), HOWEVER, FOUND THAT THE ABOVESAID AMOUN T WAS ALREADY OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN THE HANDS OF THE TWO COMPAN IES, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE PRESENT A SSESSEE. 20. THE CIT(A) ALSO FOUND THAT IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE O F 54 CENTS OF LAND, ADDITION, IF ANY, HAS TO BE MADE ON LY IN THE HANDS OF SON-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. REFERRING TO THE ADVANCE OF ` 1 LKH TO SHRI KADER BATCHA, THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ADVANCE WAS NOT GIVEN DURING THE FIN ANCIAL YEAR 1994- 95 AND THAT TOO NOT BY THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY, T HE INVESTMENT IN THE SHARES OF R.R. MEDI PHARMA, THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT T HE ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE MADE ONLY IN THE HANDS OF SHRI RAJASANKAR , SON-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE SR. STANDING COUNSEL, T HE ENTIRE INVESTMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, TH E CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. 21. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI S.SRIDHAR, LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS EXAMINED U/S 132( 4) OF THE ACT. IN RESPECT OF THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, T HE ASSESSEE CLARIFIED THAT THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT WAS MADE IN TH E NAME OF SHRI ITA NO. 847/13 :- 15 -: RAJASANKAR ANOTHER DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY. NO INV ESTMENT WAS MADE IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE C IT(A) HAS RIGHTLY FOUND THAT THE ADDITION, IF ANY, HAS TO BE MADE EIT HER AS INVESTMENT OR DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT, IT HAS TO BE MADE ONLY IN THE HANDS OF SHRI RAJASANKAR, SON-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESS EE AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. REFERRING TO THE ADVANCE O F ` 1 LAKHS MADE TO SHRI KADER BATCHA, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF FOUND THAT THE ADVANCE OF ` 1 LAKHS TO SHRI KADER BATCHA WAS MADE BY M/S SOUTHERN RIMS P. LTD ON 31.3.1989. WHE N THE COMPANY MADE THE ADVANCE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. REFERRING TO THE INVESTMENT OF ` 30,000/- IN SHARES IN R.R. MEDI PHARMA, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITT ED THAT THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF SHARES PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY 1000 AND THE AMOUNT INVESTED IS ONLY ` 10,000/- AND NOT ` 30,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE ADDITION OF ` 10,000/- IN HER HANDS EVEN THOUGH THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE BY HER DAUGHTER, SMT. ANANDI WI TH THE ASSISTANCE OF HER HUSBAND SHRI RAJASANKAR. THEREFO RE, THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASSESS ONLY ` 10,000/- AS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE E AS AGAINST ` 30,000/- ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. REFERR ING TO THE ADVANCE IN M/S AVJ MARKETING SERVICES TO THE EXTENT OF ` 4 LAKHS, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SIMPLY PLACED HIS RELIANCE ITA NO. 847/13 :- 16 -: ON THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT WHICH WAS LATER RETRACTED BEFORE THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF IN COME-TAX(INV.). THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT TAKEN ANY STEPS TO EXAMI NE THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BEFORE THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF IN COME-TAX(INV.) RETRACTING THE STATEMENT MADE U/S 132(4) OF THE AC T. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTI FIED. 22. NOW COMING TO THE INVESTMENT MADE IN SOUTHERN RIMS P. LTD BY SHRI PREMAKUMAR AND SP DHANDAPANI ASSOCIATES, TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SHRI PREMAKUMAR MADE AN INVESTMENT OF ` 50,000/- AND SP DHANDAPANI ASSOCIATES HAS ALSO MAD E AN INVESTMENT OF ` 50,000/- PRIOR TO 1.4.1989 I.E DURING THE FINANCIA L YEAR 1988-89, IN M/S SOUTHERN RIMS P. LTD. NO INVESTMEN T WAS MADE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1993-94 RELEVANT TO THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY FOUND T HAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF ` 4 LAKHS WAS RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE CIT(A). REFERRING TO THE CONTRIBUTION OF ` 2 LAKHS IN MARUDAPANDI CHIT FUNDS, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE RECEIPTS AND SUBSCRIPTION WERE ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF M/S AVJ M ARKETING SERVICES. THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE FROM M/S AVJ MARK ETING SERVICES. THE CHIT CONTRIBUTION WAS ` 2 LAKHS AND THE BID VALUE WAS ONLY ` 1,50,000/-. THEREFORE, THERE WAS A LOSS OF ` 50,000/- IN THE ITA NO. 847/13 :- 17 -: TRANSACTION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY SUCH CLAIM OF LOSS IN THE RETURN. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) FOUND TH AT THE SUM OF ` 2 LAKHS WAS MADE BY M/S AVJ MARKETING SERVICES AND NO T BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE ASSESSESSED EITH ER AS INCOME OR AS DEEMED DIVIDEND IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. REF ERRING TO THE LOAN OF ` 2.50 LAKHS BY CASH TO M/S SILVER SHOES P. LTD, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOWS THE CASH PAYMENT OF ` 2.50 LAKHS. ACTUALLY THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED DEMAND DRAFT BY PAYING CASH. TH E DEMAND DRAFT WAS OBTAINED IN THE NAME OF M/S KPM INTERNATIONAL F OR THE PURCHASE OF MACHINERY FOR M/S SILVER SHOES P. LTD. THIS MACHIN ERY PURCHASED WAS ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF M/S SILVER SHO ES P. LTD AND DEPRECIATION WAS ALSO CLAIMED. WHEN THE COMPANY, M /S SILVER SHOES P. LTD. HAD UNACCOUNTED CASH, THE PURCHASE OF MACH INERY WAS DONE BY MAKING CASH PAYMENTS FROM AND OUT OF THE CASH AV AILABLE WITH THE COMPANY. THEREFORE, THIS CANNOT BE TREATED AS LOAN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE COMPANY. IN FACT, THIS MONEY BELONGS TO THE COMPANY AND IT REMAINED WITH THE COMPANY AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME, TH EREFORE, IF AT ALL ANY ADDITION HAS TO BE MADE, IT HAS TO BE MADE ONLY IN THE HANDS OF M/S SILVER SHOES P. LTD AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 847/13 :- 18 -: 23. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF ` 9,10,000/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE SEVERAL INVESTMENTS. THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT. OTHER THAN T HE STATEMENT, NO OTHER MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF LAND TO THE EXTENT OF 54 CENTS, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THE SAME DURING THE COU RSE OF EXAMINATION U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A), HOWEVER, FOUND THAT THE ADMISSION MADE U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT WAS RETRACTED BY THE A SSESSEE BY WAY OF FILING AN AFFIDAVIT. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT T HE PROPERTY/ INVESTMENT WAS IN THE NAME OF SHRI RAJASANKAR, ANOT HER DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT ADDIT ION IF ANY HAS TO BE MADE ONLY IN THE HANDS OF SHRI RAJASANKAR AS UNA CCOUNTED INVESTMENT OR AS DEEMED DIVIDEND AND NO ADDITION CA N BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FACT THAT THE INVESTME NT WAS MADE BY SHRI RAJASANKAR ANOTHER DIRECTOR IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT AS RIGH TLY FOUND BY THE CIT(A), ADDITION, IF ANY, HAS TO BE MADE ONLY IN TH E HANDS OF SHRI RAJASANKAR AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO. 847/13 :- 19 -: THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE W ITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 24. NOW COMING TO THE ADVANCE OF ` 1 LAKHS TO SHRI KADER BATCHA, THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ADVANCE WAS GIVEN BY M/S SOUTHERN RIMS P. LTD ON 31.3.1989. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE SAME CANNOT BE TAKEN AS INCOME FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 1994-95. MOREOVER, THE ADVANCE WAS GIVEN BY M/S SO UTHERN RIM P. LTD., THEREFORE, IF AT ALL ANY ADDITION HAS TO BE M ADE ONLY IN THE HANDS OF M/S SOUTHERN RIM P. LTD AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY R EASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 25. NOW COMING TO THE INVESTMENT OF ` 30,000/- IN SHARES OF R.R. MEDI PHARMA, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT ONLY A SUM OF ` 10,000/- WAS INVESTED IN 1000 SHARES OF R.R. MEDI PHARMA. T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED ` 30,000/- IN SHARES IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY ANY EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON R ECORD. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DIRE CTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASSESS ONLY ` 10,000/- AS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN SHARES ITA NO. 847/13 :- 20 -: OF R.R.MEDI PHARMA. THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 26. NOW COMING TO THE ADVANCE OF ` 4 LAKHS TO VARIOUS PARTIES IN M/S AVJ MARKETING SERVICES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER F OUND THAT ADVANCES WERE MADE BY M/S AVJ MARKETING SERVICES TO VARIOUS PERSONS TO THE EXTENT OF ` 4 LAKHS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY PLACING HIS REL IANCE ON THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT, FOUND THAT THE ADVANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AF FIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-T AX(INV.) WAS NOT EXAMINED EITHER BY THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INV.) OR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE NAMES OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE ADVANCES WERE MADE ARE NOT AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. THE ADVANCES WERE SAID TO BE MADE BY M/S AVJ MARKETING SERVICES AND NOT BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS WI TH REGARD TO THE ADVANCES SAID TO BE MADE BY M/S AVJ MARKETING SERVI CES AND THE DETAILS OF THE PERSONS WHO RECEIVED THE ADVANCES, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ITA NO. 847/13 :- 21 -: 27. NOW COMING TO THE INVESTMENT IN M/S SOUTHERN RIM PV T. LTD BY SHRI PREMAKUMAR AND S.P.DHANDAPANI ASSOCIATES, T HE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE PRIOR TO 1.4.1989 DURI NG FINANCIAL YEAR 1988-89. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I S 1994-95. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE CIT(A) FOUND THA T THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE REFORE, HE DELETED THE ADDITION OF ` 1 LAKH. THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 28. NOW COMING TO THE CONTRIBUTION OF ` 2 LAKHS IN MARUDAPANDI CHIT FUNDS, THE CONTRIBUTION TO CHIT FUND WAS MADE FROM M/S AVJ MARKETING SERVICES AND THE SAME WAS ACCOUNTED IN TH E BOOKS OF M/S AVJ MARKETING SERVICES. THE BID AMOUNT OF ` 1,50,000/- WAS ALSO ACCOUNTED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF M/S AVJ MARKETING SERV ICES. WHEN THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE FROM M/S AVJ MARKETING SERVICES S ACCOUNT AND THE BID AMOUNT ALSO RECEIVED AND ACCOUNTED IN THE B OOKS OF M/S AVJ MARKETING SERVICES, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSID ERED OPINION THAT THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE IS N OT JUSTIFIED. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DIRECTED THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THE CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS CHIT FUND. ITA NO. 847/13 :- 22 -: 29. NOW COMING TO THE LOAN OF ` 2,50,000/- TO M/S SILVER SHOES P. LTD, THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT DISCLOSES THE CASH PAYMENT OF ` 2,50,000/-. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IN FACT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE IN CASH FOR OBTAINING DEMAND DRAFT. THE DEMAND DRA FT WAS TAKEN IN THE NAME OF M/S KPM INTERNATIONAL FOR PURCHASING MA CHINERY FOR M/S SILVER SHOES P. LTD. THE PURCHASE OF MACHINERY IS ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF M/S SILVER SHOES P. LTD. THE C IT(A) FOUND THAT THERE WERE UNACCOUNTED CASH SALES IN THE HANDS OF T HE COMPANY, M/S SILVER SHOES P. LTD. THEREFORE, THE CASH PAYMENT F OR PURCHASE OF MACHINERY IS ALSO DEEMED TO BE OUT OF THE UNACCOUNT ED INCOME OF M/S SILVER SHOES P. LTD. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIA L, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE THAT THE PAYMENT OF ` 2,50,000/- WAS MADE IN CASH FOR PURCHASE OF DEMAND DRAFT CANNOT BE REJECTED IN TOTO. WHEN THE PAYMENT OF ` 2,50,000/- WAS MADE FOR PURCHASING DEMAND DRAFT FOR THE PURPOS E OF PURCHASE OF MACHINERY, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPIN ION THAT AT THE BEST, THE PAYMENT CAN BE DEEMED TO BE MAE FROM THE UNACCO UNTED INCOME OF M/S SILVER SHOES P. LTD. THEREFORE, THE ADDITIO N IF ANY HAS TO BE MADE ONLY IN THE HANS OF M/S SILVER SHOES P. LTD AN D NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY RE ASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF ` 9,10,000/- IS CONFIRMED. ITA NO. 847/13 :- 23 -: 30. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 ST APRIL, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . !' ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 1 ST APRIL, 2016 RD &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 4. + / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. ),- . / DR 3. +/' / CIT(A) 6. -01 / GF