ACIT, CHENNAI V. Smt. R.Rajeswari, CHENNAI

ITSSA 27/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8776 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 21-02-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S DASGUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: K RAVI
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Opportunity of cross examination; Third party statement; Block assessment; Documents seized
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O. K. NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ------- IT(SS)A NO. 27 /MDS/2012 BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD : 1996-97 TO 2001-02 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-XIV, CHENNAI. V. SMT. R. RAJESWARI, Y BLOCK, 4 TH STREET, NO.67 (NEW NO. 7), ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 040. (PAN : AAEPR6941B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. DASGUPTA, DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K. RAVI, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 21.02.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.02. 2013 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-XII, CHENNAI DATED 08-06-2012 FOR THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD 1996-97 TO 2001-02. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIV IDUAL AND DERIVES INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND CAPITAL GAIN S. DURING IT(SS)A NO. 27/MDS/2012 : 2 : THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 001-02 THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE PROPERTY AT NO. 264, KILPAUK GARD EN ROAD, CHENNAI-10 TO DR. RAM KUMAR AND MRS. KAVITHA RAM KU MAR, FOR A CONSIDERATION OF ` 47 LAKHS THROUGH SALE DEEDS DATED 25- 09-2000. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME O N 31-07- 2001 DISCLOSING INCOME OF ` 65,060/- AND IN HER RETURN OF INCOME SHE HAD ADMITTED THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF ` 47 LAKHS. 3. THERE WAS A SEARCH ACTION AT THE PREMISES OF THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY. DURING THE COURSE OF SE ARCH THE INVESTIGATION OFFICERS FOUND A DIARY TITLED SRI MA HAVIR JAIN MANDIR BELONGING TO THE FATHER OF THE PURCHASER WH ICH CONTAINED ENTRIES MADE FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY . AS PER THE NOTINGS IN THE DIARY THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION PA ID FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY WAS ` 77,32,837/-. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THERE WAS A PAYMENT OF CASH OF AB OUT ` 23 LAKHS OVER AND ABOVE THE STATED CONSIDERATION. ACC ORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS RE-OPENED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2001- 02 AND NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSE SSEE FILED A RETURN OF INCOME ADMITTING THE SAME INCOME SHOWN ORIGINALLY AT ` 65,060/-. IN THE COURSE OF THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED WHY THE CASH AMOUNT OF ` 23 LAKHS RECEIVED BY HER SHOULD NOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX. IN H ER REPLY SHE IT(SS)A NO. 27/MDS/2012 : 3 : STATED THAT SHE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY AMOUNT MORE TH AN THE CONSIDERATION STATED IN THE SALE DEED. HOWEVER, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE CLEARLY PROVES BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD RECEIVED ` 23 LAKHS OVER AND ABOVE THE STATED CONSIDERATION I N THE DEED AND THE PURCHASERS ALSO HAD ADMITTED THAT THE ENTRIES RELATING TO PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY. THEY HAVE AL SO OFFERED THE SAID AMOUNT FOR TAXATION BY FILING RETURNS AND PAYING TAX DUES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE TAXED THE AM OUNT OF ` 23 LAKHS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT SHE HAS RECEIVED ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION ON SALE OF PR OPERTY TO CAPITAL GAINS AND DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE AT ` 18,60,770/-. 4. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). THE CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R ON THE GROUND THAT THE RE-OPENING WAS NOT VALID. THEREAFT ER, THE MATTER WENT TO THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND THE HONB LE HIGH COURT DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPLETE TH E ASSESSMENT WITHIN 4 WEEKS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER I NITIATED IT(SS)A NO. 27/MDS/2012 : 4 : PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 ('THE ACT' FOR SHORT) ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS I NFORMATION ABOUT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME TO THE ASSESSEE BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED FROM THE BUYERS OF THE PROPERTY FR OM THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS HANDED OVER TO HIM BY THE INVEST IGATION DEPARTMENT. NOTICE U/S 158BD OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 27- 01-2009. IT WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. NO RETUR N WAS FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE-SAID NOTICE. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE BY HER LETTER DATED 14-12-2009 REQUESTED F OR DROPPING THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SEC. 158BD OF THE ACT AS THE SATISFACTION REQUIRED UNDER THE SAID SECTION WAS NOT RECORDED AND THE NOTICE ITSELF WAS INVALID. THE AS SESSEE BY HER LETTER DATED 18-02-2011 REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER CERTAIN ADDITIONAL DETAILS REGARDING THE SATISFACTI ON RECORDED AND THE BASIS OF ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158B D OF THE ACT ETC. A REPLY LETTER WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 8-3-2011. AGAIN THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER DATED 11-4-2011 W HEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT GIVE N ANY POWER TO INITIATE ACTION U/S 158BD OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THE CONDITIONS UNDERLYING THE PRO VISIONS OF SEC. 158BD ARE NOT SATISFIED IN HER CASE AND REQUES TED FOR DROPPING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD. THEREAFTER, TH E IT(SS)A NO. 27/MDS/2012 : 5 : ASSESSEE ALSO FILED A WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HON BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT CHALLENGING THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 158BD VIDE W.P. NO. 9958 OF 2 011. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE SAME WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSE E. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO COMPL ETE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SECOND ROUND OF THE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN TCA NOS. 67 & 68 HAS SPECIFIC ALLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO CO-OPERATE WITH THE DEPART MENT TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. A FRESH OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AGAIN VIDE LETTER DATED 11.05.2011. AS TH ERE WAS NO RESPONSE, A FURTHER OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN ON 18-05- 2011. IT WAS POINTED OUT TO THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INVESTIGAT ION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT HAS CONDUCTED A SEARCH U/S 132 OF TH E ACT ON 19.01.2001 AT THE PREMISES OF THE PURCHASERS OF THE PROPERTY FROM THE ASSESSEE, NAMELY DR. RAM KUMAR & MRS. KAVI THA RAM KUMAR AND SHRI J. SUMERMAL, FATHER OF DR. RAM K UMAR. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH A POCKET DIARY WAS SEIZED. WHEN SHRI J. SUMERMAL WAS EXAMINED ON OATH WITH REF ERENCE TO THE ENTRIES FOUND IN THE DIARY HE ACCEPTED THAT THE ENTRIES WERE MADE BY HIM AND THEY RELATED TO THE PURCHASE O F THE IT(SS)A NO. 27/MDS/2012 : 6 : PROPERTY AT KILPAUK GARDEN ROAD. HE FURTHER ACCEPT ED THAT APART FROM THE SALE PRICE NOTED IN THE DOCUMENTS I. E. ` 47,00,000/-, HE HAD INCURRED CASH EXPENSES OF ` 23,00,000/-N TOWARDS PURCHASE OF THE ABOVE PROPERTY. SUBSEQUENT LY, ON 9.5.2001 SHRI J. SUMERMAL AND HIS SON DR. RAM KUMAR FILED AN AFFIDAVIT WHEREIN THEY HAVE STATED THAT THE AMOU NT REPRESENTING CASH AS NOTED IN THE SEIZED SLIPS WAS OUT OF THE INCOME OF FATHER AND THE NOTINGS ON THE PAPER REFLE CTED DETAILS OF PURCHASES OF PROPERTY IN NAME OF DR. RAM KUMAR A ND HIS WIFE. THEY HAD UNDERTAKEN TO PAY THE TAXES ACCORDIN GLY. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ON MERITS IT IS PROVED BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS RECEIVED ` 23 LAKHS BY CASH OVER AND ABOVE THE APPARENT CONSIDERATION OF ` 47 LAKHS BY WAY OF SALE OF THE PROPERTY TO THE BUYERS, DR. RAM KUMAR AND MRS. KAVITHA RAM KUMA R. THIS IS EVIDENT FROM THE INFORMATION ALONG WITH THE COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT OF SHRI J. SUMERMAL , PASSED ON BY THE DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV) VIDE LETTER DATED 08-0 1-2003. IT IS ALSO EVIDENCED FROM THE SEIZED DOCUMENT TITLED SHR I MAHAVIR JAIN MANDIR FOUND IN THE PREMISES OF THE BUYERS OF THE PROPERTY, AS REPORTED BY THE DDIT(INV) IN HIS APPRA ISAL REPORT DATED 21-06-20011. THIS DOCUMENT CLEARLY DISCLOSED THE IT(SS)A NO. 27/MDS/2012 : 7 : VARIOUS PAYMENTS MADE FOR PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY WHICH CONTAINED BOTH CHEQUE AND CASH PAYMENTS FOR ` 77,32,837/-. THE ASSESSEE IGNORED THE CASH PAYMENT AND DISCLOSED ONLY CHEQUE PAYMENTS IN HER RETURN OF INCOME. THE CASH PAYMENT OF ` 23 LAKHS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AT ALL D ISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT EVEN IN THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC TION 158BD OF THE ACT. THE BUYERS OF THE PROPERTY ADMIT TED HAVING PAID THE EXTRA CONSIDERATION TO THE ASSESSEE AND AL SO PAID THE TAXES DUE THEREON BY FILING RETURNS SHOWING THE SAI D CONSIDERATION. BASED ON THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD IN THIS APPEAL THE CONCLUSION THAT IS TO BE DRAWN IS T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS IN FACT RECEIVED ` 23 LAKHS OVER AND ABOVE THE STATED CONSIDERATION IN THE DOCUMENT WHICH WAS OMIT TED TO BE OFFERED TO TAX. ACCORDINGLY, A SUM OF ` 23 LAKHS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BROUGHT TO TAX AS UNDISCLOSED CONS IDERATION RECEIVED ON SALE OF THE PROPERTY IN THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMP LETED ACCORDINGLY. 6. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MAT TER BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) I T WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER WAS BASED ON THE STATEMENT AND NOTINGS IN A DIARY OF TH IRD PARTY IT(SS)A NO. 27/MDS/2012 : 8 : CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE FOR T HE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE. THE NOTINGS OF THE BUYERS FATHER WAS BI NDING ON THE BUYER AND NOT ON THE SELLER ASSESSEE. THE CIT( APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE O BSERVED THAT AS FAR AS THE SELLER ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, TH E ABOVE DIARY AND STATEMENT OF SHRI J. SUMERMAL, FATHER OF DR. RAM KUMAR CAN BE A GOOD SOURCE OF INFORMATION TO BELIEV E THAT THERE WAS A CASH COMPONENT OF SALE CONSIDERATION IN ADDITION TO THE DECLARED VALUE OF SALE CONSIDERATION. THIS CAN BE SUFFICIENT REASON EVEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF RE-OPENIN G THE ASSESSMENT. IT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE TAXABLE/UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE S ELLER OF THE PROPERTY. THIS IS PARTICULARLY SO, BECAUSE THE SAI D DIARY AND STATEMENT ARE THE DOCUMENTS/CLAIMS OF A THIRD PARTY AND SUCH THIRD PARTY STATEMENTS/DIARIES HAVE NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE AS FAR AS OTHERS ARE CONCERNED. THE CIT(APPEALS) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT AS PER THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF JAIN HAWALA DIARY CASE OF BRIBES, I.E. CBI V. V.C. SHIKHLA & OTHERS IN ITS ORDER DATED 02-03-1998 HAS HELD THAT THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ONE PERSON A RE NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE LIABILITY OF OTHER PERSONS. IN THAT CASE IT(SS)A NO. 27/MDS/2012 : 9 : THE CBI WHILE SEARCHING THE PREMISES OF SHRI J.K. J AIN AND HIS BROTHERS, FOUND DIARIES OF JAIN BROTHERS IN WHICH I T WAS MENTIONED (WRITTEN) THAT CERTAIN AMOUNTS WERE PAID TO VARIOUS PERSONS (MOSTLY POLITICIANS INCLUDING THE POPULAR P ERSONALITIES LIKE SHRI V.C. SHUKHLA, SHRI L.K. ADVANI ETC.). TH E HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THESE ENTRIES IN THE DIARIE S OF JAIN BROTHERS ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE LIABILITY OF SHRI V.C. SUKHLA, SHRI L.K. ADVANI AND OTHERS AGAINST WHOM CH ARGES WERE LEVELED. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE JUDGMEN T IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER : .EVEN IF WE PROCEED ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE ENTRIES MADE IN MR 71/91 ARE CORRECT AND THE ENTRIES IN THE OTHER BOOKS AND LOOSE SHEETS WHICH W E HAVE ALREADY FOUND TO BE NOT ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE UNDER SECTION34, ARE ADMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE ACT TO SUPPORT AN INFERENCE ABOUT THE FORMERS CORRECTNESS STILL THOSE ENTRIES WOULD NOT BE SUFFIC IENT TO CHARGE SHRI ADVANI AND SHRI SUKLA WITH ACCUSATIO NS LEVELED AGAINST THEM FOR THERE IS NOT AN IOTA OF INDEPENDENT EVICENCE TO SUPPORT THEREOF. THE CIT(APPEALS) BASED ON THE ABOVE JUDGMENT FURTHE R OBSERVED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF ENTRIES MADE IN TH E DIARY OF BUYERS FATHER SHRI SUMERMAL. THERE IS NO INDEPEND ENT IT(SS)A NO. 27/MDS/2012 : 10 : EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN RECEIPT OF THE SAID CASH COMPONENT OF ` 23 LAKHS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DELETED. 7. ON BEING AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE HAS CARRIED THE M ATTER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LEARNED DR STRONGLY SUPPO RTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT BASED ON THE ENTRIES OF THIRD PARTIE S, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE PAYMENT IN CASH. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NOWHERE IN THEIR SWORN STATEMENTS DATED 09-05-2011 THEY HAD SP ECIFICALLY STATED THAT CASH PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO THE ASSESSEE . HE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(APPE ALS). 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE RECORD S AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE SOLD HER PROPERTY AT NO.264, KILPAUK GARDE N ROAD, CHENNAI ON 14-09-2000 FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF ` 47 LAKHS AND THE SAME WAS REGISTERED. THEREAFTER THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT CONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF DR. RAM KUMAR AND HIS FATHER. DURING T HE COURSE IT(SS)A NO. 27/MDS/2012 : 11 : OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS A DIARY WAS FOUND AND SEIZED TITLED AS MAHAVIR JAIN MANDIR AND IN WHICH MANY ENTRIES WER E FOUND. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE DIARY BELON GED TO THE BUYERS FATHER, SHRI J. SUMERMAL, AND THE ENTRIES I N THE DIARY WERE WRITTEN BY HIS FATHER. THEREFORE HE CAME TO TH E CONCLUSION THAT THE TOTAL ENTRIES OF CALCULATION AMOUNTED TO ` 77,32,837/- MINUS ` 47,00,000/- AND THE REMAINING BALANCE OF ` 23 LAKHS WAS CASH PAYMENT. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THESE PEOPLE WITH REGARD TO THE ABOVE PAYMENT, DR. RAM KU MAR BY AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 9-5-2001 STATED THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH IN THE PREMISES ON 20-01-2001 AND THE SEIZED PAPERS RE FLECTED THE DETAILS OF PURCHASES OF PROPERTY IN NAME OF HIM SELF AND HIS WIFE AT 264/125, KILPAUK GARDEN ROAD, CHENNAI-10. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE AMOUNT REPRESENTING CASH AS NOTED IN THE SEIZED SLIPS WAS OUT OF THE INCOME OF HIS FATHE R, SHRI J. SUMERMAL AND ACCORDINGLY THEY HAD PAID THE TAXES. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT SHE SOLD THE PROPERTY AND R ECEIVED CHEQUE OF ` 47 LAKHS AS THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THERE ARE SOME ENTRIES WHICH WERE FOUND AT THE PREMISES OF THE BUY ERS AND THEY HAVE ADMITTED THAT THESE ENTRIES RELATED TO TH E PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY AND PAID TAXES. ON THE BASIS OF TH E ABOVE, THE IT(SS)A NO. 27/MDS/2012 : 12 : ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF ` 23 LAKHS BY WAY OF CASH. EXCEPT THE ABOVE INFORMATION, I.E. IN THE DIARY, THERE IS NO MATERIAL BASED ON WHICH THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. THEREFORE, WE CANNOT COME TO A PRIMA FACIE CONCLUSION, BASED ON THE ENTRIES FOUND IN THE DIARY OF THIRD PARTIES, UNLESS THERE IS CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE, TH AT THE SAID PAYMENT WAS MADE TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CASE THE RE IS NOTHING ON RECORD EXCEPT THE ENTRIES IN THE DIARY, AND BASED ON THE ENTRIES IN THE DIARY, TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID BY T HE BUYERS. IN THE COURSE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER INSISTED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT SHE HAD NOT REC EIVED AN AMOUNT OF ` 23 LAKHS. THE CIT(APPEALS) BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F CBI V. V.C. SHUKHLA (SUPRA) OBSERVED THAT THE ENTRIES IN T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ONE PERSON ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE L IABILITY OF OTHER PERSONS. THE CIT(APPEALS), BY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS NO INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE WH ATSOEVER BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AN RECEIPT OF THE CASH COMPONENT OF ` 23 LAKHS AND DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. AFTER IT(SS)A NO. 27/MDS/2012 : 13 : CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE CA SE, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ` 23 LAKHS AS CASH COMPONENT AND IT IS ALSO IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER THAT SHE HAS NOT RECEIVED SUCH SUM. IN OU R OPINION, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE B ASIS OF THE ENTRIES IN THE DIARY BELONGING TO BUYERS FATHER, C ANNOT SURVIVE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE O RDER PASSED BY THE CIT (APPEALS). THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEA L RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON THURSDAY, THE 21 ST OF FEBRUARY, 2013, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (DR. O. K. NARAYANAN) (V.DURGA RAO) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 21 ST FEBRUARY, 2013. H. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT(A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE