A.P.Ramalingam, Pudukkottai V. ACIT, Trichy

ITSSA 11/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9986 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-01-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 10-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N MADHAVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Cost of acquisition; Bad and doubtful debts; Block assessment
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI . , . . , ! ' [BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER AND SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.(SS)A.NO.11/MDS/2012 BLOCK PERIOD 1987-88 TO 1997-98 (UPTO 11.12.1997) SHRI A.P.RAMALINGAM 5379 SECOND STREET MARTHANDAPURAM PUDUKKOTTAI 622 001 VS. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE I TRICHY [PAN ACFPR 6153 C ] ( #$ / APPELLANT) ( %&#$ /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N. MADHAVAN, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 16-01-2014 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24-01-2014 ' / O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR BLOCK ASS ESSMENT PERIOD 1987-88 TO 1997-98 (UPTO 11.12.197), IS DIRE CTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) T IRUCHIRAPALLI, DATED 27.2.2012, PASSED IN APPEAL NO.233/06-07, IN PROCEEDINGS I.T.(SS)A.NO.11/12 :- 2 -: UNDER SECTION158BC R.W.S 251 OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. A PERUSAL OF THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL REVEA LS THAT THE ASSESSEES GRIEVANCE IS FOUR FOLDED I.E HE IS CHALL ENGING THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING ADDITIONS TOWARDS INVESTMEN T IN MONEY LENDING BUSINESS OF ` 2,41,180/-, INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY PURCHASED OF ` 76,979/-, LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS OF ` 2,00,000/- [REDUCED FROM ` 3,42,000/-] AND INVESTMENT MADE IN CHITS OF ` 17,500/- WHICH WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE BLO CK ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.3.2003. A FEW FACTS OF THE CASE MAY BE NOTICED. 3. THE ASSESSEE; AN INDIVIDUAL, IS A MONEY LENDER. ON 11.12.1997, THE DEPARTMENT HAD CONDUCTED A SEARCH IN HIS PREMISES ALLEGEDLY UNEARTHING BLANK PROMOTES IN THE NAMES OF HIMSELF AND HIS WIFE SMT. AMUTHA RANI, PURCHASES OF IMMOVABLE PROPE RTIES, JEWELLERY AND CASH ETC. NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS WIFE H AD BEEN FILING RETURN BEFORE THE SEARCH. THE DEPARTMENT SERVED A NOTIC E U/S 158BC OF THE ACT ON 1.4.1998 TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE, HE CHOSE TO FILE HIS RETURN ON 7.8.1998 ADMITTING TOTAL UNDISCLOSED IN COME OF ` 3,31,130/- I.T.(SS)A.NO.11/12 :- 3 -: PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED BLOCK PERIOD FROM 1987-8 8 TO 1997-98 (UPTO 11.12.1997). IT COMPRISED OF TOTAL LOANS OUT STANDING AND INVESTMENTS IN JEWELLERY. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FRAMED ASSESSMENT VIDE ORDER DATED 30.12.1999 COMPUTING TO TAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF ` 8,34,361/-. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL. THE CI T(A), VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 7.5.2000, REMANDED THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. IN CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINALIZED THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT. THIS TIME, HE MADE IMPUGN ED ADDITIONS OF ` 2,41,180/-, ` 17,500/-, ` 3,42,000/- AND ` 76,979/- REGARDING UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENTS IN MONEY LENDING BUSINESS , CHITS, LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS AND INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLES; RESPECTIVELY. IN ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE CIT(A) HAS AFFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXCEPT THE ONE PERTAINING TO LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS WHICH HAS BEEN REDUCED FROM ` 3,42,000/- TO ` 2,00,000/-. IN THIS MANNER, THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS HAVE BEE N ACCEPTED BY THE CIT(A) IN PART. THIS LEAVES HIM AGGRIEVED. I.T.(SS)A.NO.11/12 :- 4 -: 6. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE ASSESSEE REITERATES HIS GROUNDS REGARDING THE ADDITIONS OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN MONEY LENDING BUSINESS, IMMOVABLES AND LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS . COMING TO THE INVESTMENT IN CHITS, HE STATES THAT SINCE THE AMOUN T INVOLVED IS ONLY ` 17,500/-, HE IS NOT PRESSING THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY , THE ASSESSEE PRAYS FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE APPEAL. 7. THE REVENUE SUPPORTS THE CIT(A)S ORDER UNDER CHALL ENGE AND PRAYS FOR CONFIRMATION THEREOF. 8. FIRST WE COME TO THE ISSUE OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTM ENT IN MONEY LENDING BUSINESS. IN THE COURSE OF BLOCK ASS ESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED CREDIT FOR ACCUMULATED CAPITAL OF ` 1,99,000/-. AS PER SEIZED DOCUMENT, HE HAD TOTAL OUTSTANDING LOANS OF ` 7,23,580/-. IN BLOCK ASSESSMENTS, THE ASSESSEE HAD PLEADED/PRO VED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SAID AMOUNT COMPRISED O F INTEREST ELEMENT AND LOANS OBTAINED FROM FAMILY MEMBERS OF ` 1,83,500/- AND ` 2,38,900/- RESPECTIVELY. IN ADDITION TO THIS, HE C LAIMED TO HAVE INCURRED INTEREST EXPENSES OF ` 60,000/- PAID TO PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND BAD DEBTS OF ` 49,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ACCEPTED ASSESSEES PLEAS REGARDING INTEREST OUTGO AND LOANS AFORESAID. AT THE SAME TIME, HE DECLINED THE OTHER PLEA OF BAD DEBTS. I.T.(SS)A.NO.11/12 :- 5 -: ACCORDINGLY, A SUM OF ` 2,41,180/- STOOD ADDED AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN LOANS. THE CIT(A)S ORDERS THAT BAD DEBTS BE NOT READ AS PART OF THE IMPUGNED ADDITION AS UNDER: 4.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE BLOCK ASS ESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE AND A LSO THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIV ES OF THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSMENT OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD IS BASED ON ASSET METHOD, AS PER THE TOTAL ASSETS OUTS TANDING AS AT THE DATE OF SEARCH I.E 11.12.1997. THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS ALLOWED CREDIT FOR THE OPENING CAPITAL OF ` 50,000. THEREFORE, I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON IN THE CLAIM OF THE CREDIT FOR THE ACCUMULATED CAPITAL OF ` 1,99,000. I THEREFORE, DISMISS THIS CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT. 5. REGARDING THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS I HAVE CAREFUL LY GONE THROUGH THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE AND ALSO THE SUBMISSIONS AS M ADE BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDER AND ALSO THE ARGUMENTS OF THE AUTHORIZED REPR ESENTATIVE THAT THE APPELLANT DOES NOT MAINTAIN REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON DAY TO DAY A ROUGH RECORD OF THE MONEY LENT/RECOVER ED BY HIM, THAT THE SAID ROUGH RECORDS HAVE BEEN SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND ARE NUMBERED AS RK/B&D/S THAT THE AMOUNT OF MON EY LENDING ADVANCES FOR THE PURPOSE OF BLOCK ASSESSMEN T HAS BEEN WORKED OUT BASED ON THE ENTRIES IN THE SAID BOOKS O NLY AND THAT THE APPELLANT ALSO DOES NOT DISPUTE THE AMOUNT OUTS TANDING AS ARRIVED AT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM OUT OF SUC H RECORD. 5.1 THE ONLY POINT THAT REMAINS TO BE ANSWERED NOW IS WHETHER THE APPELLANT IS REQUIRED TO WRITE OFF THE AMOUNTS AS BAD DEBTS AND IF REQUIRED UNDER THE ACT, WHETHER HE HAS COMPL IED WITH THE SAID REQUIREMENT. ON A READING OF SECTION 36(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, I FIND THAT THE SAME HAS GOT TWO LIMBS AS POINTED OUT BY THE APPELLANT AND THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE DEBTS SH OULD BE WRITTEN OFF IS NOT APPLICABLE TO MONEY LENT IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BANKING OR MONEY LENDING BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. 5.2 EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE AMOUNTS SHOULD BE WRITT EN OFF, THE APPELLANTS ARGUMENT THAT THE INDIVIDUAL DEBTOR ACC OUNTS NEED NOT I.T.(SS)A.NO.11/12 :- 6 -: BE SQUARED OFF BY PASSING A CREDIT ENTRY APPEARS TO HAVE FOUND FAVOUR WITH THE JUDICIAL FORUMS AS HELD IN THE FOLL OWING CASES: 161 ITR 65 (MAD) SRI VINAYAGA PICTURES 130 ITR 95 (GUJ) VITHALDAS M DHAJI BHAI BARDANWAL LA 143 ITR 166 (GUJ) SARANGPUR COTTON MGF CO LTD. 5.3 TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FACTUAL/LEGAL POSITION AS ABOVE, I HOLD THAT THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS BY THE APPELLANT IS ALL OWABLE AND ACCORDINGLY HOLD THAT THE SAID SUM OF ` 49000 CANNOT BE PART OF TOTAL ADVANCES OF ` 241180 AS ARRIVED AT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED ACCORDINGLY. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSED THE CASE FIL E. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY PAPER BOOK BEFORE US SO AS TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS ARRIVED AT BY THE CIT(A). IT TRANSPIRES TO US THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE MAKING IMPU GNED ADDITION HAD FOLLOWED ASSET METHOD BY KEEPING IN MIND TOTAL OU TSTANDING ASSETS AS ON 11.12.1997. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD PROVED THAT OPENING BALANCE OF THE RELEVANT BLOCK PERIOD WAS OF ` 50,000/-, THE SAME STOOD ACCEPTED. SO FAR AS THE IMPUGNED CLAIM OF ACCUMULA TED CREDIT IS CONCERNED, ADMITTEDLY, HE COULD NOT PROVE BEFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE HELP OF NECESSARY DETAILS OF ACCUMULATION ETC. THE FACTUAL POSITION CONTINUED THE SAME IN LOWER APPELLATE PROC EEDINGS. NEEDLESS TO SAY, SO FAR AS THE CIT(A)S ORDER IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENTS REGARDING BAD DEBTS ALREADY STAND ACCEPTE D. IN THIS MANNER AND IN THE ABSENCE OF NECESSARY EVIDENCE FIL ED TO PROVE I.T.(SS)A.NO.11/12 :- 7 -: ACCUMULATION OF CAPITAL, WE HOLD THAT THE CLAIM CA NNOT BE ACCEPTED. ACCORDINGLY, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IS MAINTAINED. 10. NOW WE COME TO THE SECOND GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES BY HIS WIFE. RELEVANT FACTS QUA THIS ISSUE ARE THAT ON 16.2.1994, THE AS SESSEES WIFE HAD PURCHASED A VACANT PLOT AT PUDUKOTTAI FOR ` 91,229/- [INCLUSIVE OF STAMP DUTY]. IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, IT TRANSPI RED THAT THE ACTUAL PRICE OF THE LAND WAS ` 1,20,000/- WHEREAS THE DOCUMENTED PRICE WAS ` 74,250/-. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINED THE PRICE OF THE PLOT AS ` 1,36,979/- [INCLUDING STAMP DUTY]. THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT HIS WIFE WAS ALSO A MONEY LENDER AND FILED HER RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 ONLY. HE FURTHER CLAIMED T HAT AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE, SHE HAD RECEIVED GOLD JEWELLERY WEIGHING 840 GRAMS, SILVER VESSELS AND COPPER/BRASS VESSELS WEIGHING 10 KGS AN D 60 KGS, RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEES PLEA WAS THAT THE A MOUNT IN QUESTION HAD BEEN RAISED BY DISPOSING OF THE AFORESAID SILVE R AND BRASSWARE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT OUT RIGHTLY REJECT TH E ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS. WE FIND FROM THE CASE FILE THAT THE P LEA REGARDING GOLD JEWELLERY HAVING RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE O F THE ASSESSEES WIFE STOOD ACCEPTED. HOWEVER, EXPLANATION REGARDIN G SILVER AND I.T.(SS)A.NO.11/12 :- 8 -: COPPER/BRASSWARE WAS ONLY PARTLY ACCEPTED BY OBSERV ING THAT THERE WAS ONLY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF ` 76,979/- IN ASSESSEES INCOME. 11. COMING TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE VERY ISSUE HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED AS UNDER: 8.2 THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE ASSESSMENT U/S 158BC MUST BE BASED ON MATERIAL FOUND AT THE TI ME OF SEARCH AND NOT BASED ON ANY STATEMENT OBTAINED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE CIRCULAR F.NO.286/23 I.T. I NVESTIGATION DATED 10.03.2003 CONCESSION OF ADDITIONAL INCOME D URING COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE NO ATTEMPT SHOULD BE MADE T O OBTAIN CONFESSION STATEMENT AS TO UNDISCLOSED INCOME .. . FURTHER, HE ARGUED THAT EVEN OTHERWISE THE IMMOVABLE STAND I N THE NAME OF THE WIFE AND THE ONUS IS ON THE PERSON IN WHOSE NAME THE ASSETS STAND AND NOT ON THE ASSESSEE. HE THEREFOR E PLEADED THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THIS REGARD MAY KINDLY B E DELETED. 8.3 ON VERIFYING THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER AND AL SO THE SUBMISSION AS MADE BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT, THE APPELLANT HAS ADMITTED ACTUAL COST P AID AT ` 1,20,000 AS DOCUMENT PRICE OF ` 74,250/-. ACCORDINGLY THE TOTAL PURCHASE COST WORKS OUT TO ` 1,36,979 INCLUDING STAMP DUTY. SINCE THE APPELLANTS WIFE HAD NO SOURCE OF INCOME ON THE DATE OF SEARCH AND ALSO SHE HAS FILED HER RETUR NS OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 ONLY AFTER T HE SEARCH, THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT FROM THE WIFE SIDE IS NOT PROVED AS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF SALE OF SILVER TO FINANCE THE PURCHASE OF THE VACANT SITE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE HAS ALREADY ALL OWED ` 60,000 TOWARDS THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT AND DETER MINED UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT AT ` 76,979(1,36,969 MINUS 60,000) AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE AY 1994-95 IS UPHELD OVERRULING THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT. I.T.(SS)A.NO.11/12 :- 9 -: 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AN D GONE THROUGH THE CASE FILE. AS STATED IN THE PRECEDING PARA, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT ALTOGETHER REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE REGARDING DISPOSING OF THE SILVER AND BRASSWARE WHEREIN THEY HAVE GIVEN ONLY CREDIT OF ` 60,000/-. SO FAR AS GOLD JEWELLERY IS CONCERNED, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDS THE ASSESSEES WIFE TO HAVE RECEIVED GOLD JEWELLERY. IN THESE CIR CUMSTANCES, BY EXERCISING OUR JURISDICTION U/S 254(1) OF THE ACT, WE HOLD THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEES PLEA REGARDING HIS WIFE TO HAVE RECEIVED 840 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AT THE TIME OF HER MARRIAGE STANDS ACCEPT ED, THERE IS NO REASON TO REJECT THE OTHER PLEA OF HAVING RECEIVED SILVER AND COPPER/BRASS VESSELS WEIGHTING 10KGS AND 60 KGS, RE SPECTIVELY. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE CIT( A) THAT HIS WIFE WAS NEVER SUMMONED AND SHE HERSELF WAS A MONEY LEND ER HAVE NOWHERE BEEN SPECIFICALLY CONTROVERTED. THUS, WE H OLD THAT THIS ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO BE ACCEPTED. CONSEQUENTLY, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLES O F ` 76,979/- STANDS DELETED. I.T.(SS)A.NO.11/12 :- 10 -: 13. THIS LEAVES US WITH THE LAST ADDITION OF LOW HOUSEH OLD DRAWINGS OF ` 3,42,000/-. IT IS EVIDENT TO US FROM THE ASSESSME NT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ARRIVED AT DRA WINGS OF ` 3,40,000/- AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SOCIOECONOMIC S TATUS OF THE ASSESSEE, HIS WIFE AND TWO SCHOOL GOING CHILDREN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED IN THE ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D BEEN RESIDING IN A RENTED HOUSE AND STATED TO BE OWNING AGRICULTURA L LANDS. 14. IN LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A) READ AS FOLLOWS: 7.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE BLOCK ASSE SSMENT ORDER AND ALSO THE SUBMISSION AS MADE B Y THE AUTHO RIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT. I FIND THAT THERE IS NO SEIZED MATERIAL BASED ON WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS B UILT UP HIS CASE FOR LOW DRAWING BY THE APPELLANT. EVEN THE ST ATEMENT RECORDED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH IS NEITHER COMPREHEN SIVE NOR COMPLETE. IN LIGHT OF THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL DECISIO NS OF HIGHER AUTHORITIES AS CITED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATI VE OF THE APPELLANT, AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT SUCH AS PRAKASH FOODS [641 ITD 396] AND RAMESHWARLA AHUJA [67 TTJ 411] WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT A REASONABLE ESTI MATE CAN BE MADE EVEN IN THE SEARCH CASES, EVEN THOUGH EXACT SE IZED MATERIAL WAS NOT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDIN GS. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT O F LOW DRAWINGS AND ALSO KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE STANDARD O F LIVING OF THE APPELLANT BASED ON THE SWORN STATEMENTS RECORDED AS RELIED ON HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN IN THE CASE OF CHAI N SUKU RATHI VS CIT AND ANOTHER [270 ITR 368 (2004)], A REASONAB LE ESTIMATE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED. HOWEVE R, KEEPING I VIEW OF THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW PERSONA L DRAWINGS FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD, AND ALSO KEEPING IN VIEW OF T HE JUDICIAL CITATION MENTIONED BY THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AN AMOU NT OF ` I.T.(SS)A.NO.11/12 :- 11 -: 2,00,000 IS REASONABLY ESTIMATED OUT OF THE ADDITIO N MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT ` 3,42,000 WHICH IS ON THE HIGHER SIDE, TO THE EXTENT OF ` 2,00,000 IS CONFIRMED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF ` 1,42,000/-. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE QUESTION ARISES FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS AS TO WHETHER THE IMPUGNED ADDITION HAS BEEN RIGHTL Y MAINTAINED TO THE EXTENT OF `2,00,000/- OR NOT. HERE AGAIN, WE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEES ABOVE SOCIOECONOMIC S TATUS AND FEEL THAT INTEREST OF JUSTICE WOULD BE MET IN CASE THE IMPUGN ED ADDITION IS FURTHER DELETED TO THE EXTENT OF `1,00 ,000/-. CONSEQUENTLY, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION ORIGINALLY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF ` 3,42,000/- WOULD BE MAINTAINED ONLY TO THE EXTENT O F ` 1,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE GETS PART RELIEF QUA THIS GROUND AS WELL. 15. THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 24 TH OF JANUARY, 2014, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 24 TH JANUARY, 2014 RD COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR