Surendra Nath Mudali, Bhubaneswar V. ACIT, Bhubaneswar

ITSSA 109/CTK/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7530 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 20-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 14-10-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARAMITA TRIPATHY
• Assessee Lawyers: BIBEK MOHANTY
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Gift; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Salary income; Charitable institution; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE : SHRI K.K.GUPTA, AM, AND SHRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO, JM IT (SS) A NO S . 109,110,111, 112,113, 114 AND 115 CTK/2011 (A Y S 2001 - 02,2002 - 03,2003 - 04, 2004 - 05, 2005 - 06,2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08) SURENDRA NATH MUDALI, PLOT NO.122, SAHBID NAGAR,BHUBANEWSWAR PAN: AHRPM 1710 F VERSUS ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), BHUBANESWAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI BIBEK MOHANTY, AR FOR THE RESPONDENT SMT. PARAMITA TRIPATHY, CIT - D R DATE OF HEARING : 20. 0 3.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.04.2012 ORDER PER BENCH : THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) DATED THE 30 TH JUNE, 2011 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENTS MADE U/ S.153A(B)/143(3)/153C OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE AYS 2001 - 02, 2002 - 03, 2003 - 04, 2004 - 05, 2005 - 06, 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08. ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY . 2. T HE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. HE DERIVES INCOME FROM SALARY AND OTHER SOURCES BUT MAINTAINED NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED IN THE MUDALI GROUP OF CASES U/S.132 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT ON 23.8.2006. NOTICE U/S.153A(A) WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURNS FOR ALL THE AYS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENTS U/S.153A(B)/143(3)/153C OF THE ACT BY MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS AND VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, IT(SS)A NOS.109,110,111.112,113, AND 114CTK/2011 2 CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER IN EACH OF THE AYS UNDER CONSIDERATION. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEALS HERE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO THE MATERIAL MADE AVAILABLE TO THE TRIBUNAL. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AN ISSUE, WHICH IS COMMON IN ALL THE APPEALS THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.153A(B)/143(3)/153C AS WELL AS THE APPELLATE ORDERS ARE AGAINST LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCES AND PROBABILITIES OF THE CASE. THIS GROUND BEING GENE RAL NATURE IT NEEDS NO SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION AND AS SUCH, THE SAID GROUND IS DISMISSED AS ALSO WAS NOT ARGUED . 5. ANOTHER ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST SUSTENANCE OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF PROFESSIONAL INCOME OF 16,500 , 17,800, 22,500, 65,000, 53,000, 47,500 AND 49,500 IN THE AYS 2001 - 02, 2002 - 03,2003 - 04, 2004 - 05, 2005 - 06,2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08 RESPECTIVELY . WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE SAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THA T THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES TO SUBSTA NTIATE THE SOURCE OF INCOME AND ALSO THE QUANTUM OF INCOME AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE SAME. 5.1. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS WERE M ADE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A LAW GRADUATE HAVING BAR LICENSE AS AN ADVOCATE SINCE 1963 AND HE IS PRACTICING AS AN ADVOCATE FOR OVER LAST 37 YEARS. HE HAS BEEN GIVING LEGAL CONSULTATION AND ASSISTANCE TO MANY INDIVIDUAL CLIENTS IN TH E LAST 15 YEARS. HE HAS WORKED IN IT(SS)A NOS.109,110,111.112,113, AND 114CTK/2011 3 THE MATTER OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL AND LABOUR CASES IN VARIOUS COURTS. IN SUPPORT OF IT, HE PRODUCED THE COPY OF BAR LICENSE ENROLLED HIM AS AN ADVOCATE. BUT THE LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE SAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE H OLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF RECEIPT OF INCOME FROM LEGAL PROFESSION. WE FIND THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT DISPUTING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN ADVOCATE HAVING BAR LICENSE CERTIFICATE SINCE 1963 BUT THE DISPUTE IS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF PROFESSIONAL INCOME WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE FOR SUCH RECEIPTS. THE LEARNED DR CONTENDED BEFORE THAT M ERE POSSESSING AN ADVOCATE LICENSE DOES NOT INDICATE THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE EARNED PROFESSIONAL INCOME AND IN ORDER TO ESTABL ISH OF HAVING RECEIVED PROFESSIONAL INCOME; THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE SOME MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT THEREOF. WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE. INCOME FROM PROFESSION OF AN PRACTICING ADVOCATE CANNOT BE DENIED JUST BECAUSE THE PAYEES ARE TO BE IDENTIFIED. RENDERINGINCOME THEREOF CANNOT BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE U/S.153A. THEREFORE, THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE ALLOWED AS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. FURTHER AN ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS COMMON, IS AG AINST SUSTENANCE OF DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF 14,300, 15,000, 20,000, 30,000, 50,000 AND 35,000 IN THE AYS 2002 - 03, 2003 - 04, 2004 - 05, 2005 - 06, 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08 . 6.1. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION IN THIS REG ARD HAS BEEN MADE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF HIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS AS WERE RAISED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE ASSESSEE IT(SS)A NOS.109,110,111.112,113, AND 114CTK/2011 4 AND HIS WIFE SMT. JANAKI MUDALI HAVE AGRICULTURE LAND AND ORCHARD AND FISHERIES. THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS SPOUSE GROW PAPAYA, LEMON, MANGO AND ROSE FLOWER IN THE ORCHARD AND THE SAME ARE SOLD TO VENDORS OF LOCAL MARKET IN CUTTACK AND BHUBANESWAR. THE ORCHARD IS SURROUND ING THE TWO BIG PONDS AND 2 SMALL PONDS HAVING MORE THAN 4.5 ACRES AREA. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED A COPY OF THE LAND AREA UNDER FISHERY CULTIVATION PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED A COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF THE CONCERNED FISHERY OFFICER AND ENGINEER OF THE BLOCK OF GOVERNMENT OF ORISSA SHOWING THE WATER AREA, THE SIZE AND DEPTH OF THE PONDS. ON THE BASIS OF THESE, THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL I NCOME. WE FIND THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT DISPUTING THE ABOVE FACT OF POSSESSING THE ORCHARD AND PONDS BUT THE DISPUTE IS REGARDING GENERATING OF INCOME THERE FROM , FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE OF IN SUPPORT THEREOF. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT HAVING ACCEPTED THE SOURCE OF INCOME BEING AGRICULTURE, ORCHARDS AND PONDS THERE WAS NO REASON TO DOUBT RENDERING INCOME ON YEARLY BASIS THERE FROM WHICH QUANTUM HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSING OFFICERS U/S.143(3). THE AS SESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ACCEPT THE SAME AS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF 57,102 MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03 AT ALING, CUTTACK, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE E NTIRE INVESTMENT WAS MADE IN CASH. HE OBSERVED IN HIS ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE SOURCE OF SUCH INVESTMENT AND MADE THE ADDITION AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE SAME. IT(SS)A NOS.109,110,111.112,113, AND 114CTK/2011 5 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL MADE AV AILABLE ON RECORD. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT AS WOULD BE SEEN FROM THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT (PLACED AT PAGE37 P.B) AND THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2002 - 03 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 (PLACED AT PAGE 38 OF THE PB), THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT FUNDS SO AS TO MAKE THE INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND. FURTHER HE CONTENDED THAT THE AMOUNT OF 57,102 HAD BEEN PAID IN CASH AFTER MAKING WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK. WE HAVE VERIFIED THE SAID CONTENTIONS FROM THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK AND WHEN THE SAME WAS POINTED OUT, THE LEARNED DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE SAME. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ADDITION MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) OF 57,102 ON THE GROUND OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND HENCE, WE DIRECT DELETION OF THE SAID AMOUNT BY ALLOWING THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF 2,06,000 PERTAINING TO INVESTMENT FOR THE OFFICE PREMISES O F M/S.MAMATA, MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), AFTER PERUSING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE FIND THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS UNDISPUTEDLY PURCHASED IN JOINT NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE FOR 4,12, 000 AT THE 50:50 RATIO. HOLDING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT, 2,06,000, BEING 50% OF THE TOTAL COST, WAS ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE MAY MENTION HERE THAT WHILE DEALING WITH THE APPEALS OF SMT.JANAKI MUDULI VIDE CONSOLIDATED ORDER PASSED ON TO - DAY IN IT (SS) A NO S . 95,96,97,98,99,100, AND 101/CTK/2011, WE HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION OF 2,06,000 MADE IN THE HANDS OF SMT.JANAKI MUDULI ON THE GROUND THAT SUFFICIENT FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE IT(SS)A NOS.109,110,111.112,113, AND 114CTK/2011 6 ASSESSEE SO AS TO MAKE THE IMPU GNED INVESTMENT. THEREFORE, FACTS AND ISSUE BEING COMMON IN THE CASES OF BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE, WE DIRECT DELETION OF THE ADDITION OF 2,06,000 IN THE HANDS OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE BY ALLOWING THE GROUND RAISED IN THIS REGARD. 10. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF 2,25,345 IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT WAS MADE IN CASH AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE SOURCE OF THIS INVESTMENT. ACCORDINGLY, HE ADDED THIS AMOUNT TO THE TOTAL INCOME HOLDING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAME. 10.1. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT PLACED AT PAGES 13 AND 14 OF THE PB AND SUBMITTED THA T AS WOULD BE SEEN FROM THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT CASH AVAILABLE WITH HIM BECAUSE OF HEAVY WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR, SO AS TO MADE INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND IN QUESTION. FURTHER HE CONTENDED THA T THE SAID AMOUNT HAD BEEN PAID IN CASH AFTER MAKING WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK IN THE PRECEDING YEAR AND. WE ARE SATISFIED WITH THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER HAVING VERIFIED THE CASH FLOW STATEMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN B OTH THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 AND ITS EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) OF 2,25,345 ON THE GROUND OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND HENCE, WE DIRECT DELETION OF THE SAID AMOUNT BY ALLOWING THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT(SS)A NOS.109,110,111.112,113, AND 114CTK/2011 7 11. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF 3,74,800 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) TOWARDS TRUST CONTRIBUTION, AFTER HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL MADE AVAILABLE TO THE TRIBUN AL, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIFTED A LAND VALUED 6,00,000 WHICH WAS IN THE JOINT NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HER SPOUSE TO S.J.CHARITABLE TRUST ALONG WITH REGISTRATION EXPENSES OF 74,80 0. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE GIFT HAD NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE NOR THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT IN THIS LAND WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF 3,00,000 (CONSIDERING EQUAL SHARE IN THE LAND BY THE ASSESSEE AND SPOUSE) AND THE REGISTRATION EXPENSES OF 74,800 AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAME. 12. WE MAY MENTION HERE THAT WHILE DEALING WITH THE APPEALS OF SMT.JANAK I MUDULI VIDE CONSOLIDATED ORDER PASSED ON TO - DAY IN IT (SS) A NO S . 95,96,97,98,99,100, AND 101/CTK/2011, WE HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION OF 3,00,000 MADE IN THE HANDS BEING 50% OF THE GIFT IN QUESTION. FOR THE VERY SAME REASONING, WE DIRECT DELETION OF THE ADD ITION OF 3,00,000 MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. FURTHER WE DIRECT DELETION OF THE ADDITION OF THE REST AMOUNT OF 74,800 BEING THE REGISTRATION EXPENSES OF THE ABOVE GIFT , AS THE ASSESSEE UNDISPUTEDLY HAD SUFFICIENT FUNDS AVAIL ABLE WITH HIM TO COVER UP THE SAID AMOUNT OF 74,800. 13. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF 44,455 IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06, ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE SOURCE THEREOF, THE ASSESSING IT(SS)A NOS.109,110,111.112,113, AND 114CTK/2011 8 OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT HOLD ING AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAME. 13.1. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL MADE AVAILABLE TO THE TRIBUNAL. GOING THROUGH THE CASH/BANK FLOW STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS EXTRACTED IN THE ORDER OF T HE LEARNED CIT(A) WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE PAYMENTS OF 5,958 AND 38,497 IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 AND 2006 - 07 RESPECTIVELY. FURTHER WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH HIM IN BOTH THE AYS SO AS TO INVEST IN PURCHASE OF THE SAID LAND. THEREFORE, WE AR E OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF 44,455 IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 ON THIS COUNT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THIS ASPECT OF THE CASE. THEREFORE, WE DIRECT DELETION OF THE SAID ADDITION BY ALLOWING TH E GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 14. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF 1,50,000 AND 2,50,000 ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN M/S.MAMATA AND CONTRIBUTIN FO S.J.CHARITABLE TRUST HOLDING AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND EXPENDITURE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE ABOVE INVESTMENT AND EXPENDITURES WERE MET OUT OF FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH HIM. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN AN AMOUNT OF 1,50,000 FROM THE BANK AND HAD CASH EARNED INCOME OF MORE THAN 1,00,000 TO JUSTI FY AVAILABILITY OF CASH TO CONTRIBUTE TO S.J.CHARITABLE TRUST, WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY THE CASH/BANK FLOW STATEMENT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT SUCH SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAV ING EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF CONTRIBUTION TO S.J.CHARITABLE TRUST, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE IT(SS)A NOS.109,110,111.112,113, AND 114CTK/2011 9 IMPUGNED ADDITION OF 2,50,000. WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT DELETION OF THE SAME BY ALLOWING THE GROUND RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. 14.1. SIMILAR IS THE CASE IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF 1,50,000 BEING INVESTMENT IN MAMATA FOR ITS CONSTRUCTION , WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE MET THE SAID INVESTMENT OUT OF UNSECURED LOAN OF 3,00,000 AS REFLECTED IN THE CASH/BANK FLOW STATEMENT, AS ABSTRACTED IN PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). THEREFORE, WE DIRECT DELETION OF THE SAID ADDITION OF 1,50,000 BY ALLOWING THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE RAISED IN THIS REGARD. 15. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION O F 8,00,000 MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT, THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PAGES THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT WITH THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONTENDED THAT IT CLEAR REFLECTS THAT A SUM OF 7,00,000 WAS B ROUGHT IN AS UNSECURED LOAN. FURTHER HE SUBMITTED THAT IN ITS REPLY DT.29.12.2008 THE FACT THAT 2,00,000 WAS RECEIVED IN CHEQUE/DD WAS ALSO CLARIFIED. BUT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE IGNORED THE SAME AND ADDED 8,00,000 AS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED THAT DETAIL CONFIRMATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FOR UNSECURED LOAN OF 7,00,000 (PAGES 15 AND 16 OF THE PB). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, HE CONTENDED THAT THE ADDITION OF 8,00,000 MADE BY THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW WITHOUT EXAMINING THOSE DETAILS PRODUCED BEFORE THEM, IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT(SS)A NOS.109,110,111.112,113, AND 114CTK/2011 10 1 5.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. HAVING EXHAUSTED THE FUNDS UTI LISED THE SAME COULD NOT JUSTIFY 1 LAKH THEREIN REMAINING UNEXPLAINED. THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE TAXED AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 16. AS REGARDS ADDITION OF 2,57,000 MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN M/S.MAMATA, THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CONTRIBUTED A SUM OF 2,57,000 TOWARDS SHARE OF CAPITAL IN M/S.MAMATA OUT OF THE LOAN TAKEN FROM SBI, NIALI BRANCH, CUTTACK. EVEN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF MAMATA FOR THE YEAR BEING COMPLETED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE ORDER WITHOUT ANY ADVERSE COMMENTS. HE PLACED COPY OF SUCH ORDER ALONG WITH THE LOAN STATEMENT AT PAGES 31 AND 32 OF PB. AFTER PERUSING THE SAME TO WHICH THE LEARNED DR DID NOT DISPUTE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW TH AT THE ASSESSEE SUCH INVESTMENT IN MAMATA I.E., BY OBTAINING LOAN FROM SBI, NIALI BRANCH AND THUS HAS DULY EXPLAINED THE SOURCE. IN SUCH VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ADDITION OF 2,57,000 MADE ON THIS COUNT CANNOT BE SUSTAINE D AND HENCE, WE DIRECT DELETION OF THE SAID ADDITION. 17. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. S D/ - S D/ - (K.S.S.PRASAD RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER (K.K.GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 25.04.2012 H.K.PADHEE, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY. IT(SS)A NOS.109,110,111.112,113, AND 114CTK/2011 11 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT: SURENDRA NATH MUDALI, PLOT NO.122, SAHBID NAGAR,BHUBANEWSWAR 2. THE RESPONDENT: ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), BHUBANESWAR. 3. THE CIT, 4. THE CIT( A), 5. THE DR, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE (IN DUPLICATE) TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY.