N.Tamilselvi, CHENNAI V. DCIT, Madurai

ITSSA 1/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3392 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 13-06-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 20-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAILENDRA MAMIDIP
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Block assessment
• Section: 132; 11

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI , . , BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUD ICIAL MEMBER I.T (SS) .A. NO. 0 1 /MDS/2017 BLOCK ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1990 - 91 TO 1999 - 2000 AND 2000 - 01 ( PART ) N. TAMILSELVI, SOLAIPURAM NORTH, ORRKADU, AMBASAMUDRAM 627 401. [PAN: A CYPT4802H ] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , C ENTRAL CIRCLE II I , MADUR AI 625 002 . ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S AILENDRA MAMIDI , P CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 1 3 . 0 6 .201 7 / D ATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 31 . 0 8 .201 7 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 1 9 , CHENNAI , DATED 08 . 1 2 .201 6 RELEVANT TO THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD 1990 - 2000 TO 1999 - 2000 AND 2000 - 01 PART PASSED UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [ ACT IN SHORT]. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1.1 THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS WRONG, ILLEG AL AND OPPOSED TO FACTS. 1.2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT GOING INTO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM. IT (SS) A NO S . 01 /M/ 1 7 2 1.3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE EXCLUDED INC OME WHICH IS LESS THAN THE TAXABLE LIMIT OF EACH YEAR. 2.1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.33,000 BEING THE AMOUNT SPENT FOR PURCHASE OF SITE AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME SEPARATELY WHEN IT IS INCLUDED IN THE SUM OF RS.2,50,000/ - . 2.2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,50,000 TOWARDS COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. 2.3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE SAME AMOUNT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED FOR ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF MR. G. NARAMBULINGAM, HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO. 3.1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.30,000/ - FOR THE A.Y. 1996 - 97 AND RS.44,355/ - FOR THE A.Y. 1998 - 99 BEING THE AMOU NT INVESTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS CAPITAL IN SAKTHI WINES. 3.2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PROPERLY EXPLAINED THE SOURCES FOR THE CREDIT. 4.1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,00,000/ - FOR THE A.Y.1997 - 98 AND RS.2,00,000/ - FOR THE A.Y.1998 - 99 BEING THE LOAN GIVEN TO HER HUSBAND SHRI G.NARAMBULINGAM. 4.2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO NOTE THAT BOTH THESE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED F OR ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE'S HUSBAND AND TREATED AS HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 5.1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,14,060/ - TOWARDS COST OF VACANT SITE PURCHASED. 5.2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO NOTE THAT THIS AMOUNT HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED AS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE'S HUSBAND SHRI G. NARAMBULINGAM. IT (SS) A NO S . 01 /M/ 1 7 3 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT O N 29.05.2002 BY ISSUING A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158BC R.W.S. 158BD OF THE ACT, CONSEQUENT TO A SEARCH CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF SHRI G. NARAMBULINGAM, HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE ON 1 8 .1.200 0 UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT. IN THE SAID ORDER, THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE BLOCK PERIOD WAS DETERMINED AS UNDER: ASST. YEAR ITEM AMOUNT 1991 - 92 PURCHASE OF SITE . 33,000/ - 1992 - 93 COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING . 2,50,000/ - 1996 - 97 CREDIT ENTRIES TOWARDS CAPITAL IN M/S. SAKTHI WI NES [( .15,000 + .15,000) . 30,000/ - 1997 - 98 LOAN GIVEN TO SHRI G. NARAMBULINGAM FOR PURCHASE OF OLD THEATRE BUILDING . 3,00,000/ - 1998 - 99 I) LOAN GIVEN TO SHRI NARAMBULINGAM FOR CONSTRUCTION OF DRUGAI THEATRE ( .2,00,000) (II) CREDIT TOWARDS CAPITAL IN M/S. SAKTHI WINES ( .44,355) . 2,44,355/ - 2000 - 01 PURCHASE OF VACANT SITE . 1,14,060/ - TOTAL . 9,71,415/ - 3. THE FIRST GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE EXCLUDED INCOME WHICH IS LESS THAN THE TA XABLE LIMIT OF EACH YEAR. 3.1 A SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF SHRI G. NARAMBULINGAM, HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE ON 18.01.2000. D URING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH, CERTAIN INVESTMENTS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND. CO NSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH, A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 31.05.2000 AND SERVED ON 05.06.2000. AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIALS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND THE IT (SS) A NO S . 01 /M/ 1 7 4 EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS COMPLETED THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT BY TAXING THE ENTIRE INCOME IN THE BLOCK PERIOD. 4. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS M ADE AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5.1 THE FIRST EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE EXCLUDED INCOME WHICH IS LESS THAN THE TAXABLE LIMIT F OR EACH YEAR. 5.2 IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX PRIOR TO THE SEARCH CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT IN HER HUSBAND S CASE. THE SEARCH ALSO REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN MAINTAINING ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR HER INCOME. THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME ASSESSED U/S. 158BC R/W S. 158BD IS TO BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 158BB, AND THE TAX COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 158BA. T HERE IS NO AMBIGUITY IN THE LAW IN THE MATTER. THE SAME HAS BEEN APPARENTLY FOLLOWED, AND NEITHER HAS ANY INFIRMITY BEEN POINTED OUT TO US. WE, ACCORDINGLY, FIND NO REASON FOR INTERFERENCE, AND THE ASSESSEE S GROUND IS DISMISSED. IT (SS) A NO S . 01 /M/ 1 7 5 6. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS OF .33,000/ - BEING THE AMOUNT SPENT FOR PURCHASE OF SITE AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME SEPARATELY WHEN IT IS INCLUDED IN THE SUM OF .2,50,000/ - , BEING COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AND ALSO CHALLENGED THE CONFIRMATION OF THE ADDITION OF .2,50,000/ - . 6.1 WITH REGARD TO THE ABOVE ISSUE, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE S HUSBAND SHRI G. NARAMBULINGAM AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION FOR THE SAME AMOUNT CAN NOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 6.2 WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND ALSO PERUSED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI G. NARAMBULINGAM, ASSESSEE S HUSBAND. A HOUSE SITE O N WHICH THE ASSESSEE S RESIDENTIAL BUILDING WAS LATER ON C ONSTRUCTED, WAS PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ON 20.08.1990 FOR A SUM OF .33,000/ - . THIS INVESTMENT HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE S HUSBAND SHRI G. NARAMBULINGAM . SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT , THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NO SOURCE OF INCOME TO EXPLAIN THIS INVESTMENT, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS INCLUDED IN THE SUM OF .2,50,000/ - , WHICH WAS AGREED FOR ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF IT (SS) A NO S . 01 /M/ 1 7 6 ASSESSEE S HUSBAND AS PER PARA 8.19 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE CASE OF SHRI G. NARAMBULINGAM. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE ASSESSEE S HUSBAND, WHEREIN, WE FIND THAT THE HE HAS PURCHASED A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN THE YEAR 1990 IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE AND MADE IMPROVEMENTS TO IT INVOLVING A TOTAL INVESTMENT OF .2,50,000/ - . PURCHASE OF HOUSE SITE IS DIFFERENT FROM PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND MAKING FURTHER IMPROVEMENT , WHICH IS ONLY SUBSEQUENTLY . IN THE PRESENT ASSESSEE S CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED A HOUSE SITE AT .33,000/ - FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED ANY SOURCE FOR THE SAID INVESTMENT. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE COST OF HOUSE SITE PURCHASED BY THE AS SESSEE IS INCLUDED IN THE COST OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PURCHASED BY ASSESSEE S HUSBAND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE TOWARDS PURCHASE OF A SITE BY THE ASSESSEE. H ENCE, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 7. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF .2,50,000/ - TOWARDS COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONTENDING THAT THE SAME AMOUNT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED FOR ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF MR. G. NARAMBULINGAM, HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE. 7.1 THE ASSESSEE'S RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON THE SITE MENTIONE D ABOVE WAS CONSTRUCTED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1991 - 92 FOR AN ADMITTED COST OF IT (SS) A NO S . 01 /M/ 1 7 7 .2,50, 000/ - . THIS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF SHRI G. NARAMBULINGAM AND HIS CLAIM THAT THE COST WAS INCURRED FROM OUT OF HIS INCOME FROM DURGAI WINES WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SINCE THERE WERE NO DEBITS IN THE BOOKS OF DURGAI WINES EVIDENCING WITHDRAWAL BY SHRI G . NARAMBULINGAM AND THE SUM OF .2,50, 000/ - HAS BEEN TREATED AS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF SHRI G. NARAMBULINGAM. THIS ADDITION HAS BEEN CONTESTED B Y SHRI G. NARAMBULINGAM IN HIS APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY HE HAD NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME EXCEPT HIS AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. HOWEVER, AS DISCUSSED IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE CASE OF SHRI G. NARAMBULING AM, NO EVIDENCE HAD BEEN FURNISHED TO ESTABLISH THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED BY HIM. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DOES NOT HAVE ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF HER OWN. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN AS MUCH AS THE INVESTMENT STANDS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE, IT HAS TO B E T AKEN AS NOT EXPLAINED AND WILL ACCORDINGLY BE INCLUDED IN HER HANDS AS HER UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992 - 93. 7.2 ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 8. THE ASSESSEE HAS SPENT AN AMOUNT OF .2,50,000/ - TOWARDS COST OF CONST RUCTION FOR THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE SAID INVESTMENT WAS OUT OF BOOKS OF M/S. SAKTHI WINES. HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO WITHDRAWAL FROM THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE FIRM. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT BEEN ABLE TO GIVE ANY EVIDENCE OF ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN HER HANDS. CONSIDERING THE SAME, THE ADDITION MADE IN PARA 8 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER OF .2,50,000/ - PERTAINING TO A.Y. 1992 - 93 IS CONFIRMED AS ADDITION TAXABLE FOR THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD. IT (SS) A NO S . 01 /M/ 1 7 8 FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE FOR THE SOURCE TOWARDS COST OF CONSTRUCTION FOR THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE SAID INVESTMENT WAS OUT OF BOOKS OF M/S. SAKTHI WINES, WAS SUMMARILY REJECTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO WITHDRAWAL FROM THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN TH AT FIRM. FURTHER, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSE E THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ALREADY TAXED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE S HUSBAND AND AGAIN IT CANNOT BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE, BECAUSE, ASSESSEE S HUSBAND SHRI G. NARAMBULINGAM HAS PURCHASED RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND MADE IMPROVEMENT SUBSEQUENTLY INVOLVING INVESTMENT OF .2,50,000/ - WAS TREATED AS HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND BROUGHT TO TAX , WHICH IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AT .2,50,000/ - ON THE SITE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE SMT. TAMILSE L VI. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COGENT EVIDENCE FOR THE SOURCE FOR THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION, THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS SUSTAINED AND DISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. THE NEXT GROUND RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF .30,000/ - FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 1996 - 97 AND .44,355/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 - 99 BEING THE AMOUNTS INVESTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS CAPITAL IN SAKTHI WINES. 8.1 IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT IN ASSESSEE'S CAPITAL ACCOUNT, IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT OF M/S. SAKTHI WINES SHOWS THE FOLLOWING CREDITS: - IT (SS) A NO S . 01 /M/ 1 7 9 DATE AMOUNT 02.04.1995 . 15,000 10.04.1995 . 15,000 16.04.1996 . 25,000 30.05.1997 . 1,04,000 IN RESPECT OF THE FIRST TWO AMOUNTS, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THEY WERE MADE OUT OF HER PER SONAL SAVINGS. THE CLAIM CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NO SOURCE OF INCOME PRIOR TO HER JOINING THE FIRM AS A PARTNER. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SOURCE OF INCOME, THE CLAIM OF SAVINGS DOES NOT ARISE AT ALL. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE CRED ITS OF .15, 000 EACH ON 0 2 .0 4 .1 995 AND 1 0 .0 4 . 1995 AS NOT EXPLAINED AND INCLUDED IN HER UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996 - 97. IN RESPECT OF THE CREDIT OF .25,000 / - ON 16. 0 4.1996, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE FIRM HAD DISCLOSED IT AS ITS INCOME IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997 - 98. SINCE T HIS WA S FOUND TO BE CORRECT , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED THIS CREDIT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE . IN RESPECT OF THE SUM OF .1,04, 000/ - CREDITED ON 30. 0 5.1997, THE ASSESSEE HAS C LAIMED THAT IT WAS OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF 10 SOVEREIGN OF JEWELLERY SOLD TO ONE SUDALAI ASARI AND JEWEL LOAN OF .1,47,00 0 TAKEN FROM AMBAI CO - OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD., AMBASAMUDRAM. IN SUPPORT OF THE JEWEL LOANS, SHE HAS FILED PHOTO COPIES OF JEWEL LOAN CARDS ISSUED BY THE AMBASAMUDRAM CO - OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD. HOWEVER, SINCE THESE CARDS ARE NOT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE BUT ARE ACTUALLY IN THE NAMES OF SHRI A.S. JAYAPAUL AND SHRI P. RAMAKRISHNAN AND N O EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHO W THAT IT (SS) A NO S . 01 /M/ 1 7 10 THESE PERSONS HAD PLEDGED THE ASSESSEE'S JEWELLERY AND THAT SUCH JEWEL LOANS WERE RECEIVED BY HER , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE PIECE OF EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, N O EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FILED IN RESPECT OF THE SALE OF 10 SOV ER EIGN OF GOLD TO SUDALAI ASARI. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE SOURCE FOR THE CREDIT OF .1,04, 000/ - ON 30. 0 5.1997 W AS TAKEN AS NOT EXPLAINED PROPERLY AND A CCORDINGLY INCLUDED THE SAME IN THE ASSESSEE'S UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 - 99. 8.2 ON APPEAL, SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE ABOVE CREDITS, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE UNEXPLAINED CREDITS. 8.3 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ALSO, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE ABOVE CREDITS AND FIND NO SUBSTANCE IN THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BEFORE THE AU THORITIES BELOW. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ADDITION MADE TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CREDITS AND DISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF .3,00,000/ - F OR THE ASSESSMENT 1997 - 98 AND .2,00,000/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 - 99 BEING THE LOAN GIVEN TO HER HUSBAND SHRI G. NARAMBULINGAM. 9.1 FACTS LEADING TO THIS GROUND ARE THAT A N OLD THEATRE BUILDING ALONG WITH LAND APPURTENANT TO IT AT AMBASAMUDRAM WAS PURCHASED ON 15 .0 7 . 1996 JOINTLY IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI G. NARAMBULINGAM FOR A STATED IT (SS) A NO S . 01 /M/ 1 7 11 PRICE OF .7, 50 , 000/ - . THE TOTAL COST INCLUDING STAMP DUTY, REGISTRATION CHARGES, ETC. WAS .8,47,760 / - . SHRI G. NARAMBULINGAM HAS CLAIMED, INTER ALIA, A CRE DIT OF .3, 00 , 000/ - FROM THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE FOR PURCHASE PRICE OF THIS PROPERTY. HOWEVER, IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER OF SHRI G. NARAMBULINGAM, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE CREDIT WAS NOT GENUINE SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NO SOURCE OF INCOME EXCEPT THE SHARE OF PROFIT FROM M/S. SAKTHI WINES AND THAT THERE WERE NO DEBIT ENTRIES IN HER CAPITAL ACCOUNT IN THE SAID FIRM'S BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY SHRI G. NARAMBULINGAM AGAINST THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER IN HIS CAS E, HE HAS CONTESTED THE STAND TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE CREDIT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FROM OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THAT SUCH INCOME WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE'S ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME IS HE R SHARE OF PROFIT FROM M/S. SA K THI WINES IN WHICH SHE IS A PARTNER. FROM THE DETAILS OF CAPITAL ACCOUNT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER LETTER DATED 26 .0 4 . 2000, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTICED THAT THERE ARE NO DRAWINGS IN HER CAPITAL ACCOUNT TO CORRESPOND TO THE ALLEGED LOAN OF .3, 00 , 000/ - GIVEN BY HER TO HER HUSBAND. SHE HAS ALSO NOT ADMITTED ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY HER. NO EVIDENCE WAS ALSO FOUND TO SHOW THAT SHE HAD ACTUALLY ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE SOURCES FOR THE SUM OF .3, 00 , 000/ - ALLEGEDLY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO HER HUSBAND FOR MEETING THE COST OF PURCHASE OF THE ABOVE SAID PROPERTY REMAINS UNEXPLAINED AND ACCORDINGLY, IT (SS) A NO S . 01 /M/ 1 7 12 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THE ABOVE SUM AS ADVANCE MADE FROM UNEXPLAIN ED SOURCES DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1996 - 97 BROUGHT THE SAME TO ASSESSMENT AS ASSESSEE S UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997 - 98. 9.2 FURTHER, T HE OLD THEATRE BUILDING REFERRED TO ABOVE WAS DEMOLISHED AND A NEW THEATRE NAMED DURGAI THEATRE WA S CONSTRUCTED BY SHRI G. NARAMBULINGAM. IN HIS BLOCK ASSESSMENT, HE CLAIMED THAT A SUM OF .2, 00 , 000/ - WAS RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE AS PA R T OF THE SOURCES FOR THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF DURGAI THEATRE. IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE CASE OF SHRI G . NARAMBULINGAM, THIS CLAIM HAS ALSO BEEN REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE SAME REASONS AS MENTIONED IN RESPECT OF THE ALLEGED LOAN FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE SUM OF .2, 00 , 000/ - HAS BEEN TREATED AS THE UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF SHRI G. NARAMBULINGAM. THIS ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO BEEN CONTESTED BY SHRI G. NARAMBULINGAM IN HIS APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER IN HIS CASE ON THE SAME GROUNDS. FOR THE SAME REASONS AS DISCUSSED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH, THE A DVANCE OF .2, 00 , 000/ - FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE THEATRE WA S ALSO TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONSEQUENTLY THE SAME WAS ASSESSED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 - 99 AS TH E CONSTRUCTION OF THE THEATRE BUILDING WAS COMPLETED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 199798. IT (SS) A NO S . 01 /M/ 1 7 13 9.3 AGAINST THE ABOVE ADDITIONS TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CREDITS, SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE ANY CONCRETE EVIDENCE TOWARDS SOURCE OF INCOME TO OFFER LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) CO NFIRMED THE ADDITIONS. THE ONLY ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IN THE CASE OF SHRI G. NARAMBULINGAM, THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS REMITTED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THEREFORE, THE SAME OR DER SHOULD BE FOLLOWED. THE ABOVE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL IS NOT ACCEPTABLE, BECAUSE, IN THIS CASE, AFTER VERIFYING THE CAPITAL ACCOUNTS OF M/S. SAKTHI WINES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE CREDIT WAS NOT GENUINE SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NO SOURCE OF INCOME EXCEPT THE ONLY SOURCE OF SHARE OF PROFIT FROM M/S. SAKTHI WINES, IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS PARTNER AND THAT THERE WERE NO DEBIT ENTRIES IN HER CAPITAL ACCOUNT IN THE SAID FIRM S BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADMITTED ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY HER. UNDER THE ABOVE CLEAR CUT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY BROUGHT THE UNEXPLAINED CREDITS TO TAX AND ALSO FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CI T(A) ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO UNEXPLAINED CREDITS IS DISMISSED. 10. THE LAST GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF .1,14,060/ - TOWAR DS COST OF VACANT SITE PURCHASED. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IT (SS) A NO S . 01 /M/ 1 7 14 OBSERVED THAT THE VACANT SITE WAS PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAID INVESTMENT HAS ALSO BEEN INCLUDED IN THE HANDS OF SHRI G. NARAMBULINGAM AS HIS UNEXPLA INED INVESTMENT. ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE INVESTMENT TOWARDS PURCHASE OF HOUSE SITE , WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID INVESTMENT WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS IN THE HANDS OF SHRI G. NARAMBULINGAM FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01 AND HE HAS ALSO AGREED FOR THE ADDITION AND NOT CONTESTED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. UNDER THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DELETE THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 11 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 31 ST AUGUST , 201 7 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( SANJAY ARORA ) ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 31 . 0 8 .201 7 VM/ - / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT , 2. / RESPONDENT , 3. ( ) / CIT(A) , 4. / CIT , 5. / DR & 6. / GF .