P.S Ramakrishnan, Cochin V. DCIT, Ernakulam

ITA 855/COCH/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4601 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 22-02-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 04-08-2008
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T J VINCENTJR
• Assessee Lawyers: MOHANAN KUTTICKAT
• Keywords: Document seized; Cost of acquisition; Valuation report; Documents seized; Capital Gains
• Section: 153A; 139(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.VIJAYAKUMARAN & SHRI SANJAY ARORA I.T.A.NO.855/COCH/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 V.S. RAMAKRISHNAN, RAMARADHANILAYAM, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-25. PA NO.ABDPR 7315P VS. THE D Y. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOCHI. (APPELLANT) ( RESPONDENT ) & I.T.A.NO.865/COCH/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOCHI. VS. V.S. RAMAKRISHNAN, RAMARADHANILAYAM, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-25. PA NO.ABDPR 7315P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI MOHANAN KUTTICKAT RE VENUE BY SHRI T.J.VINCENT,JR.DR O R D E R PER N.VIJAYAKUMARAN,J.M: THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DEPARTMENT. THESE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-I, KOCHI, DATED 20-05-2008 , RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND ARISE OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S.153A R.W.S.143(3) OF THE I .T.ACT. ITA NOS. 855 & 865/COCH/2008 V.S.RAMAKRISHNAN 2 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A DEALER IN USED BOTTLES. ACCO RDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THIS BUSINESS IS ALSO CARRIED ON BY A PARTNERSHIP WITH THE MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY AT KOCHI , COIMBATORE, BANGALORE, MADURAI, ETC. A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON 24-08-2005 IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF M/S. RAJESWARI GLASSWARES AT CHALIKAVATTOM AND RATHISH B OTTLE SUPPLIERS, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER AND IN THE HIS RESIDENTIAL PREMISES U/S.132 AND SEIZED DOCUMENTS O F TITLE DEEDS OF VARIOUS PROPERTIES HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AN D HIS FAMILY AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER INCRIMINATIN G MATERIALS. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.153A, ASSESS EE FILED A RETURN OF INCOME ON 19-12-2006 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.1,85,18,440/-, IN ADDITION TO THE AGRICULTURAL I NCOME OF RS.71,000/-. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME PRIOR TO THE SEA RCH. 2.1 DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, A PAPER WAS FOUND IN WHICH ONE K.K.KARAN HAD ACKNOWLEDGED THE RECEIPT OF RS.5 LAKHS ON 26-3-2005 FROM THE ASSESSEE. SHRI KARAN VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 24-10-2005SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD TAKEN A CASH LOAN ON 26-3-2005 AND REPAID THE SAME IN CASH ON 24 -6- 2005. IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31-3-2005, THIS HAS NOT BEEN INCLUDED. IT WAS ITA NOS. 855 & 865/COCH/2008 V.S.RAMAKRISHNAN 3 THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THOUGH THE RECE IPT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BY SHRI KARAN ON 26 TH MARCH, ACTUALLY THE MONEY WAS GIVEN AFTER THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR . HOWEVER, ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SUMMONS TO SHRI K ARAN, SHRI KARAN APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AN D GAVE CONTRADICTING STATEMENTS AND BECAUSE OF THIS THE AS SESSING OFFICER CONSTRAINED TO DIS-BELIEVE THE VERSION OF T HE ASSESSEE AND THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF MONEY ACKNOWLEDGED BY SH RI KARAN VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 24-10-2005 WAS TAKEN AS THE CORRECT STATE OF AFFAIRS. SINCE THIS HAS NOT COM E IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT, ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THIS SUM OF RS. 5,00,000/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.2 THE ASSESSEE, IN HIS SWORN STATEMENT RECORDED ON 24- 10-2005 ADMITTED THAT HE HAD PAID A SUM OF RS.11 LA KHS TO THREE TENANTS (4+3+3) FOR VACATING THE PREMISES IN ANJUMANAN AND THAT TWO TENANTS YET TO BE VACATED. THE PAYMENT WAS COMPLETED IN MARCH 2005. THIS EXPENDI TURE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT FOR T HE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED T HAT NO SUCH ADMISSION IN RESPECT OF THE PAYMENT WAS MADE B UT ONLY RS. 1 LAKH WAS PAID TO THE TENANT AND TWO TENANTS Y ET TO BE ITA NOS. 855 & 865/COCH/2008 V.S.RAMAKRISHNAN 4 VACATED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ENTERTAIN THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED THIS SUM OF RS.11 LAKHS ALSO TO THE RETURNED INCOME. 2.3 IN 153A RETURN, ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED AGRICULTU RAL INCOME THOUGH HE HAD NOT DECLARED IN 139(1) RETURN. IN 153A RETURN, ASSESSEE CLAIMED NET AGRICULTURAL INCO ME, BEING SALE OF COCONUTS PLANTED IN 81 CENTS OF LAND IN PANAIGOUNDANPUDUR IN HIS OWN NAME AND 182 CENTS HEL D JOINTLY WITH HIS WIFE. OVER AND ABOVE THIS, ASSES SEE CLAIMED THAT M/S. RAJESWARI GLASSWARES HAS 2/7 TH SHARE IN AN AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY MEASURING 360.57 CENTS IN ELO OR WHEREFROM HE HAS INCOME FROM PLANTAIN, TAPIOCA AND COCONUT CULTIVATION AND HE HAS APPROPRIATED THE AGRICULTURA L INCOME OF RS.60,000 FROM THE FIRM FOR HIS OWN PURPOSES. HOWEVER, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER POINTED OUT THAT THE FIR M ALSO HAD NOT DECLARED ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN ITS RET URNS FILED UNDER THE REGULAR PROVISIONS OF THE I.T.ACT, ASSESS EE CLAIMED THAT THIS WAS DUE TO IGNORANCE OF THE LAW. THE AS SESSING OFFICER OPINED THAT NOT A SINGLE PAPER INDICATING T HE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS FOUND DURING SEARCH. NO CR EDIBLE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DO ING ANY CULTIVATION. THE AMOUNT STAKED IS VERY HIGH. HEN CE, ITA NOS. 855 & 865/COCH/2008 V.S.RAMAKRISHNAN 5 ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E AND ADDED A SUM OF RS.1,11,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME. HOWEVER, ASSESSING OFFICER GRANTED CREDIT FOR THE S AME IN EXPLAINED THE INVESTMENTS MADE DURING THE YEAR. 2.4 DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ASSESSEE S OLD JOINT PROPERTY OF LAND AND BUILDING BELONGING TO TH E ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE AT CHITOOR ROAD, NR. KACHERIPADY, ERNA KULAM, FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.3 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE TOTAL COST AT RS.1,04,92,939 AND OFFERED FOR CA PITAL GAINS TAX AT RS.1,95,07,061 IN HIS NAME AND IN THE NAME O F HIS WIFE. THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS APPORTIONED T O RS.1,16,99,861. ON ENQUIRY REGARDING THE MARKET VA LUE OF THE PROPERTY AND ADJACENT LAND, AO FOUND THAT 15.45 4 CENTS OF LAND WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN 1969 CLAIM ING RS.4,01,500. BUT THE COST OF ADJACENT LAND PURCHA SED IN DECEMBER 1980 WAS RS.1,28,900, WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS.10,000 PER CENT. THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED THE PURCHASE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY PER CENT AT RS.1 0,000/- AND 50% SHARE OF THE ASSESSEES CAPITAL GAIN WAS DETERMINED AT 50% RS.6,18,495 AND ADDED TO THE TOT AL INCOME. ITA NOS. 855 & 865/COCH/2008 V.S.RAMAKRISHNAN 6 2.5 DURING THE YEAR 1986-87, ASSESSEE CONSTRUCTED A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AT A COST OF RS.10,40,000/- BUT H E IS UNABLE TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE AND SOURCE. ACCOR DING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THERE IS NO PROOF THAT A PRO PERTY WAS CONSTRUCTED AND ACCORDINGLY BOTH INDEXED COST OF RS.35,65,714 WAS NOT ALLOWED AND ADDED TO CAPITAL GAIN DECLARED 50% RS.35,65,714. 2.6 ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE HAD SPENT DURING 19 93094, A SUM OF RS.16,50,000/- FOR CONCRETING THE LAND WHICH WAS USED FOR HIS FACTORY. IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT THE FACTORY AND RESIDENCE WERE IN THE ADJOINING PLOTS. IN THIS CLAIM ALSO ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO FURNISH ANY EVIDE NCE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY HIM. ACCORDING TO THE ASS ESSEE AS HE HAD BEEN ADVISED BY HIS AUDITORS NOT TO RETAIN A NY DOCUMENTS BEYOND 10 YEARS, HE WAS UNABLE TO FURNISH THE EVIDENCES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IF THIS EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR FACTORY PREMISES, THE N THE EXPENSES WOULD IN ALL PROBABILITY HAVE BEEN INCLUDE D IN THE ACCOUNTS OF ANY OF HIS BUSINESS OR FIRMS IN WHICH H E IS A PARTNER. ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO RETAIN THE DO CUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF ANY CLAIM TO BE MADE BY HIM IN FUTURE . THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT ALLOW ANY IMAGINARY FIGURES OR PR ESUME ITA NOS. 855 & 865/COCH/2008 V.S.RAMAKRISHNAN 7 THE YEAR OF ADDITION. SINCE IT IS A FACTORY BUILD ING, THE DIFFERENCE IS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND NO INDEXA TION WAS ALLOWABLE. THUS ACCORDING TO HIM, ADDITION TO THE CAPITAL GAIN DECLARED WAS THEREFORE THE INDEXED COST OF HIS HOUSE PROPERTY OR 50% RS.32,45,902. 2.7 ON A SIMILAR FASHION ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE CONSTRUCTED A BOUNDARY WALL IN 1993-94 AT A COST OF RS.2 LAKHS. NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED. HENCE, ADDITIO N TO THE CAPITAL GAIN DECLARED WAS THE INDEXED COST CLAIMED OR 50% RS.3,93,442/-. 2.8 AS DISCUSSED IN THE ABOVE SUB PARAS, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE ASSESSEES ASSESSABLE CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.1,63,92,238/- AND DETERMINED ASSESSEES TOTAL INCOME AT RS.2,63,53,242/-. AGAINST THE VARIOUS A DDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-I,KOCHI. 3. THE FIRST ISSUE DEALT WITH BY THE LD. CIT(APPEAL S) IS IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.1,11,000/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD ITA NOS. 855 & 865/COCH/2008 V.S.RAMAKRISHNAN 8 DISCLOSED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.71,000/-IN 153A RETURN. DUE TO IGNORANCE, AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS NOT RETURNED IN THE RETURN FILED U/S.139(1). SINCE THE RE WAS NO AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX IN TAMIL NADU, HE HAD NOT K EPT ANY ACCOUNTS. HE HAD REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER T O MAKE A PERSONAL INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTIES OWNED BY HIM FOR ASCERTAINING THE FACTS. IT WAS THE FURTHER CONTEN TION THAT THERE WAS NO MERIT IN DISALLOWING THE SOURCE OF RS. 40,000/- RECEIVED FROM RAJESWARI GLASSWARES. THUS, THE LD. COUNSEL URGED FOR DELETION OF RS.1,11,000/-. THE LD. CIT( APPEALS) OPINED THAT CONSIDERING THE EXTENT OF LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE, SOME CREDIT FOR AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOUL D BE GIVEN AND HE ALLOWED RS.35,500/- AS AGRICULTURAL IN COME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. REGARDING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.40,000/- OF M/S. RAJESWARI GLASSWARES, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HELD THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED B Y HIM IN THE CASE OF FIRM AND THEREFORE DIRECTED THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TO GIVE CREDIT OF RS.40,000/- AS SOURCE OF INVESTMENT FOR THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO REDUCE THE ADDITION UNDER THE HEAD OTH ER SOURCES TO RS.35,500/- AND ADOPT ?RS.35,500/- AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR AGGREGATION AND RATE PURPOS E. ITA NOS. 855 & 865/COCH/2008 V.S.RAMAKRISHNAN 9 4. REGARDING CASH LOAN OF RS.5 LAKHS TO SHRI KK KIR AN ON 26-3-2005, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYME NT WAS ACTUALLY MADE ON 2-4-2005 BY WITHDRAWING THE SUM OF RS.5 LAKHS FROM M/S. RATHISH BOTTLE SUPPLIERS, WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADD ITION ON THE GROUND THAT SOURCE HAS BEEN EXPLAINED AND IT HA S BEEN VERIFIED FROM THE LEDGER EXTRACT OF THE CAPITAL ACC OUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH M/S. RATHISH BOTTLE SUPPLIERS. FURT HER, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ACCEPTED THE VERSION OF SHRI KIRAN THAT ACTUALLY THE MONEY WAS RECEIVED ON A LATER DATE COU PLED WITH THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.5 LAKHS UND ER THIS SCORE. 5. COMING TO THE ADDITION OF RS.11 LAKHS BEING THE PAYMENT MADE TO VACATE THE TENANTS, THE LD. CIT(APP EALS) ACCEPTED THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND C ONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 6. TURNING TO ADDITION OF RS.43,21,418/- BEING THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.78,23,5 53/- IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SALE OF PROPERTY JOI NTLY HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ITA NOS. 855 & 865/COCH/2008 V.S.RAMAKRISHNAN 10 SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND WAS PURCHASED ON VARIOUS DA TES FROM DECEMBER 1980 TO AUGUST 1993 AND THAT IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL GAIN IN RESPECT OF 15.454 CENTS OF LAND PURCHASED O N 28-5- 1986, THE DATE WAS INADVERTENTLY TYPED AS 28-5-1969 , BUT THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION WAS BASED ON THE IN DEX FOR 1986. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD POINTED OUT THIS MI STAKE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFUSED TO RECTIFY THE MISTAK E. 6.1 IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT A RESIDENTIAL BUI LDING MEASURING 2600 SQ.FT. WAS CONSTRUCTED DURING 1986-8 7 FOR A COST OF RS.10,40,000/- AND AFTER THAT TWO ADJACENT PLOTS OF 18.016 CENTS AND 11.59 CENTS WERE PURCHASED IN OCTO BER 1989 AND OCTOBER 1993 RESPECTIVELY AND THAT DURING 1993- 94 THE TOTAL COMPOUND WAS STARTED TO BE USED AS FAC TORY PREMISES AND FOR THIS AN AMOUNT OF RS.16,50,000/- W AS SPENT FOR CONSTRUCTION COMPOUND WALLS AND THAT THIS BUILDING WHICH WAS USED AS RESIDENCE CUM OFFICE WAS TOTALLY USED AS BUSINESS PREMISES FROM 1995-96 ONWARDS. IT WAS SU BMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM FOR WANT OF EVIDENCE. IT IS THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE THAT WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD, THOSE REC ORDS WERE DESTROYED AS ADVISED BY THE AUDITORS. THE LD . COUNSEL PRAYED FOR ACCEPTING THE CERTIFICATE OBTAINED FROM THE COCHIN ITA NOS. 855 & 865/COCH/2008 V.S.RAMAKRISHNAN 11 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CONFIRMING THAT THIS BUILDING ( WHICH IS CONSTRUCTED AS EXTENSION OF THE OLD BUILDING) RETAI NING THE SAME MUNICIPAL NUMBER HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED DURING T HE YEAR 1986-87. 6.2 AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF D EDUCTION BY VALID EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF BILLS AND VOUCHER S, VALUATION REPORTS ETC. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT THE DOCUMENTS WERE DESTROYED ON THE ADVICE OF THE A UDITORS IS NOT A VALID REASON FOR NOT PRODUCING ANY EVIDENC E IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM FOR COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAI N. HOWEVER, THE REASON STATED FOR THE ABSENCE OF EVIDE NCE RELATING TO THE OLD YEARS SEEMS TO BE REASONABLE AN D FAIR. CERTIFICATE OF THE COCHIN CORPORATION PROVES CONSTR UCTION OF A BUILDING DURING 1986-87 BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE REGARDING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION INCURRED. ACCEPTING THE PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION AS 1986-87, HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(APPEA LS) ALLOWED RS.3 LAKHS AS COST OF CONSTRUCTION. 6.3 REGARDING THE INDEXED COST TO BE ADOPTED FOR TH E LAND MEASURING 15.454 CENTS, VERIFYING THE COPY OF SALE DEED ITA NOS. 855 & 865/COCH/2008 V.S.RAMAKRISHNAN 12 PRODUCED, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE DATE OF PURCHASE WAS ON 28-5-1986 AND ACCORDINGLY ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO ADOPT THE INDEX FOR THE 198 6-87 FOR COMPUTING THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF THIS L AND. 6.4 REGARDING THE CLAIM OF INVESTMENT FOR CONCRETIN G THE PREMISES AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE COMPOUND WALL, CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF BUSINESS CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE, CONCRETING THE LAND USED AS FACTORY PREMI SES, POSSIBILITY OF INCURRING SUCH EXPENDITURE, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALLOWED RS.3 LAKHS AS COST INCURRED FO R CONCRETING AND RS.75000/- AS COST FOR THE COMPOUND WALL. 7. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS ON SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE SUSTENANCE OF DISALLOWANCE WHEREAS THE DEPARTMENT IS ON APPEAL AGAINST THE DELETION OF DIS ALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL ON TWO ISSUES, VIZ. AGAINST THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN RESPECT OF COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND SUSTENAN CE OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE EVIC TION OF ITA NOS. 855 & 865/COCH/2008 V.S.RAMAKRISHNAN 13 THE THREE TENANTS FROM THE PROPERTIES PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE AT ANCHUMANA NR. NH BYE PASS ROAD, ERNAKUL AM. 9. THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL ON THE FOLLOWING ISS UES: A) RESTRICTING THE ADDITION UNDER OTHER SOURCES FRO M RS.1,11,000/- TO RS.35,500/- IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME; B) ALLOWING CREDIT OF RS.40,000/- AS THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT; C) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.5 LAKHS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED PAYMENT TO SHRI KIRAN; D) ALLOWING RS.3 LAKHS AS COST INCURRED FOR CONCRETING AND RS.75000 AS COST FOR THE COMPOUND WALL WHILE COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS; AND E) VIOLATION OF RULE 46A BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THEE RIVAL SUBMIS SIONS. THE FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. ONLY MAIN DISPUTE I N THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ON COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN . THE LAND WAS PURCHASED FROM DECEMBER 1980 TO AUGUST 199 3. THE TITLE DEEDS WERE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE RELEVANT PROPERTY WAS SOLD IN APRIL 2004. THE OFFICE HAS TO GO TO BOTTLE FACTORY SITE. AS THERE WAS NO NEE D TO KEEP ITA NOS. 855 & 865/COCH/2008 V.S.RAMAKRISHNAN 14 THE ACCOUNTS, THE OLD DOCUMENTS WERE DESTROYED. T HIS WAS SHOWN AS REASON FOR THE INABILITY TO FURNISH THE DE TAILS FOR THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AND CONCRETING FACTORY AR EA AND THE COMPOUND WALL PUT. FURTHER, IN THE SALE DEED THE BUILDING VALUE IS MENTIONED AT ERROR: UNDEFINED OFFENDING COMMAND: RUPEE STACK: / INDIAN