Sanjaya Behera, Cuttack V. ACIT, Cuttack

ITSSA 39/CTK/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0375 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 8 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 15-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 10-02-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K AJAY KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: D DAS
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Peak credit

Judgement Text

I.T. (S . S) A. NO S . 3 9 - 44 / CTK ./20 09 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 200 0 - 20 0 1 & 2002 - 03 TO 2006 - 2007 & IT(SS)A. NOS. 33 - 38/CTK/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 200 1 - 2002 TO 2006 - 2007 PAGE 1 OF 9 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI S .V. MEHROTRA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) , AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T. (S.S.) A. NO S . 3 9, 4 0, 4 1 , 42, 43 & 44 / CTK / 20 09 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 200 0 - 0 1 & 200 2 - 0 3 TO 200 6 - 0 7 SANJAY BEHERA, ......................................... .. .APP ELL ANT MANSINGHPATNA, CUTTACK, ORISSA [PAN : A CLPB 1332 K ] - VS. - ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , .... . RESPONDENT CIRCLE - 2(1), ARUNODATA NAGAR, CUTTACK & I.T. (S.S. ) A. NO S . 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 & 38 / CTK / 20 09 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2001 - 02 TO 200 6 - 07 SATYABRATA BEHERA,........................................... .APP ELL ANT MANSINGHPATNA, CUTTACK, ORISSA [PAN : ACKPB 3538 Q] - VS. - ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX,.....RESPONDENT CIRCLE - 2(1), ARUNODATA NAGAR, CUTTACK APPEARANCES BY: SHRI D. DAS , A .R. , FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI K. AJAY KUMAR , CIT, D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : OCTOBER 1 5 , 2 01 4 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : OCTOBER 17 , 201 4 I.T. (S . S) A. NO S . 3 9 - 44 / CTK ./20 09 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 200 0 - 20 0 1 & 2002 - 03 TO 2006 - 2007 & IT(SS)A. NOS. 33 - 38/CTK/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 200 1 - 2002 TO 2006 - 2007 PAGE 2 OF 9 O R D E R AS PER BENCH : I.T. (S.S.) A. NO S . 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 & 44 / CTK / 20 09 : TH E S E ARE APPEAL S FILED BY SHRI SANJAY BEHERA AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , CUTTACK , ODISHA IN APPEAL NO S . 2 48 TO 25 3 /0 7 - 0 8 DATED 24 . 11 .20 08 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2000 - 01 & 2002 - 03 TO 2006 - 07 RESPECTIVELY . 2. I.T. (S.S.) A. NO S . 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 & 38 / CTK / 20 09 : THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY SHRI SATYABRATA BEHERA AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS), CUTTACK, ODISHA IN APPEAL NOS. 254 TO 259/07 - 08 DATED 24.11.2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 200 1 - 0 2 TO 2006 - 07 RESPECTIVELY. 3 . SHRI D. DAS, ADVOCATE , REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE S AND SHRI K. AJAY KUMAR , CIT ( D.R. ) , REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE . 4 . AT THE TIME OF HEARING, I T WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT THE ASSESSEE SHRI SATYABRATA BEHERA , IN RESPECT OF I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 & 38/CTK/ 2009 , WAS NOT PRESSING GROUNDS NO. 1 & 2 IN ALL THE APPEALS, WHICH WERE I N CHALLENGE TO THE JURISDICTION. CONSEQUENTLY GROUNDS NO. 1 & 2 IN ALL THE APPEALS STAND DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 5. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PRESSING GROUNDS NO. 5 & 6 FOR THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02 IN IT(S S)A. NO. 33/CTK/2009, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03 IN IT(SS)A. NO. 34/CTK/2009, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 IN IT(SS)A. NO. 35/CTK/2009, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 IN IT(SS)A. NO. 37/CTK/2009, AND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 IN IT(SS)A. NO. 38/CTK/2009. CONSEQUENTLY GROUNDS NO. 5 & 6 IN RESPECT OF THE SAID APPEALS MENTIONED ABOVE STAND DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. I.T. (S . S) A. NO S . 3 9 - 44 / CTK ./20 09 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 200 0 - 20 0 1 & 2002 - 03 TO 2006 - 2007 & IT(SS)A. NOS. 33 - 38/CTK/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 200 1 - 2002 TO 2006 - 2007 PAGE 3 OF 9 6. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PRESSING GROUNDS NO. 4 & 5 IN RESPECT OF THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 004 - 05 IN IT(SS)A. N O . 36/CTK/2009 . CONSEQUENTLY THE SAID GROUNDS 4 & 5 IN IT(SS)A. NO. 36/CTK/2009 STAND DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 7. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION ON MERITS IN ALL THE SIX APPEALS, THERE WERE BASICALLY THREE ISSUES. EACH OF THE ISSUES ARE DEALT WITH SERIALLY. THE FIRST ISSUE IS UNSECURED LOANS WHICH HAD BEEN TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE ALL THE EVIDENCES TO SUBSTANTIATE T HE CLAIM. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE LOANS HAD BEEN RECEIVED FROM FRIENDS AND RELATIVES AS ALSO FROM OTHER FIRMS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN CHALLENGING JURISDICTION THROUGHOUT AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO MAKE HIS SUBMISSION ON MERITS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE GRANTED OPPORTUNITY TO GO BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THAT THE ASSESSEE UNDERTAKES TO COOPERATE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND TO PRODUCE ALL THE DETAILS TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE UNSECURED LOANS WERE TAKEN. 8. IN REPLY, LD. CIT, D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN GRANTED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY, BUT INSTEAD OF USING THOSE OPPORTUNITIES FOR EXPLAINING HIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN CONTINUOUSLY HARPING ON TECHNICALITIES. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS LIABLE TO BE UPHELD. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COOPERATED IN PRODUCING THE DETAILS AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEFT WITH NO O THER OPTION HAD MADE THE ADDITION. EVEN BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) INSTEAD OF SUBSTANTIATING HIS CLAIM THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN HARPING ONLY ON I.T. (S . S) A. NO S . 3 9 - 44 / CTK ./20 09 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 200 0 - 20 0 1 & 2002 - 03 TO 2006 - 2007 & IT(SS)A. NOS. 33 - 38/CTK/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 200 1 - 2002 TO 2006 - 2007 PAGE 4 OF 9 TECH NICALITIES. EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, A PERUSAL OF THE GROUNDS RAISED CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS BASICALLY RELYING HIS CASE ON TECHNICALITIES. HOWEVER, IT SEEMS NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS RECONCILED TO THE FACT THAT TECHNICALITIES PER SE DOES NOT SAVE TH E ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOW WILLING TO PRODUCE ALL THE EVIDENCES AND HAS ALSO GIVEN AN UNDERTAKING TO COOPERATE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THIS ISSUE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FOR RE - ADJUDICATION AFTER GRANTING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE. IT MAY SPECIFICALLY BE MENTIONED THAT IF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT COOPERATE AND PRODUCE ALL THE EVIDENCES, LIBERTY WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO DRAW ADVERSE INFERENCE. 10. THE SECOND ISSUE IS OF PEAK CREDIT. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THERE WERE UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED TO BE OUT OF THE GROSS TRANSPORT COMMISSION R ECEIV ED AND WITHDRAWALS FROM OTHER FIRMS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ACCEPTED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ISSUE WAS SIMILAR TO THE ISSUE OF THE UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS DECIDED IN THE CASE OF ASHIRBAD BEHERA IN IT(SS)A. NOS. 29 TO 32/CTK/2009. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ADDITION MAY BE DELETED. 11. IN REPLY, LD. CIT, D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO LINK THE COMMISSION RECEIVED OR THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE CONSIGNO R OR THE WITHDRAWAL S FROM THE FIRMS AND DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ADDITION WAS LIABLE TO BE CONFIRMED. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IN THE CASE OF ASHIRBAD BEHERA, WHICH IS ONE OF THE CONNECTED CASES IN THE GROUP IN IT(SS)A. NO. 29 TO 32/CTK/2009, VIDE AN ORDER DATED 15.10.2014 WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT THE PEAK CREDIT IS LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED. CONSEQUENTLY THE ADDITION IN I.T. (S . S) A. NO S . 3 9 - 44 / CTK ./20 09 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 200 0 - 20 0 1 & 2002 - 03 TO 2006 - 2007 & IT(SS)A. NOS. 33 - 38/CTK/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 200 1 - 2002 TO 2006 - 2007 PAGE 5 OF 9 RESPECT OF THE CASH DEPOSITS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.36,000/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02 WO ULD STAND CONFIRMED, THE ADDITION OF RS.12,61,750/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03 WOULD GET REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF RS.36,000/ - CONFIRMED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02 AND TH E RESULTANT ADDITION WOULD BE RS.12,25,750/ - AND AS THIS AMOUNT OF RS.12,61,7 50/ - IS AVAILABLE FOR TELESCOPING, THERE WOULD BE NO ADDITION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2003 - 04 , 2005 - 06 AND 2006 - 07. 13. THE THIRD ISSUE IS THE ADDITION REPRESENTING THE INVESTMENT IN THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS BROTHER HAD CONSTRUCTED A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AT MADHUSUDAN NAGAR. THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS BROTHER WAS RS.41,70,000/ - . THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER HAD VALUED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS.59,71,000/ - . THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.18,01,000/ - WAS TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT OF THE TWO BROTHERS BEING THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI SANJAY BEHERA. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.5,83,858/ - WAS FOUND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05, RS.8,87,543/ - FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06, AND RS.3,30,399/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. THE TOTAL OF ALL THE THREE DIFFERENCES BEING RS.18,01,000/ - . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PROPORTION OF THE INVESTMENT MADE BY EACH OF THE BROTHERS AS DISCLOSED IN THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS MADE THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF BOTH THE BROTHERS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT NO ADDITION WAS CALLED FOR IN SO FAR AS THE DVO HAD ADOPTED THE CPWD RATE WHEREAS ONLY PWD RATE WAS LIABLE TO BE ADOPTED. FOR THIS PROPOS ITION, LD. A.R. PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. - RAJ KUMAR REPORTED IN CDJ 1990 (ALL. ) HC 006. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAYA R. GOV INDA RAJAN IN TAX CASE APPEAL NO. 255 OF 2014 DATED 22 ND JULY, 2014 WHEREIN ALSO THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS HAS HELD THAT ONLY PWD RATES WERE LIABLE TO BE APPLIED FOR DETERMINING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAD ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF TMPN I.T. (S . S) A. NO S . 3 9 - 44 / CTK ./20 09 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 200 0 - 20 0 1 & 2002 - 03 TO 2006 - 2007 & IT(SS)A. NOS. 33 - 38/CTK/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 200 1 - 2002 TO 2006 - 2007 PAGE 6 OF 9 MURGASAN REPORTED IN 217 TAXMAN 40 (MADRAS HIGH COURT). IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT CONSEQUENTLY NO ADDITION WAS LIABLE TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO THE SUBMISSION THAT SELF - SUPERVISION CHARGES REPRESENTING THE DEDUCTION OF 12.5% WAS LIABLE TO BE ALLOWED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT SIMILAR DEDUCTION HAD BEEN GRANTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEES FATHER SHRI ASHIRBAD BEHERA AND THE REVENUE HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID GRANT OF DEDUCTI ON BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). 14. IN REPLY, LD. CIT (DR) VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(APPEALS). 15. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PERUSAL OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT AS ALSO THE D ECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE CPWD RATE WAS NOT TO BE ADOPTED IN RESPECT OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN PLACES LIKE BHUBANESWAR ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THE CPWD RATES ARE PREVALENT IN DELHI AND OTHER SUCH MAJOR CITIES AND PWD RA TES WHICH WOULD BE MORE APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF SMALLER PLACES. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT AS ALSO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ADOP T THE PWD VALUATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT, IF ANY, IN THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AT MADHUSUDAN NAGAR BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS BROTHER. FURTHER AS THE CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN SUPERVISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS BROTHER , THE ASSES SEE IS ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION OF 12.5% TO SELF - SUPERVISION CHARGES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL WHILE COMPUTING THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT, IF ANY, IN THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY REDUCE THE VALUATION ARRIVED AT BY APPLYING THE PWD RATES AT 12.5% FOR DETERM INING THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AND THEREAFTER MAKE THE PROPORTIONATE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF BOTH THE BROTHERS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS ISSUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. I.T. (S . S) A. NO S . 3 9 - 44 / CTK ./20 09 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 200 0 - 20 0 1 & 2002 - 03 TO 2006 - 2007 & IT(SS)A. NOS. 33 - 38/CTK/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 200 1 - 2002 TO 2006 - 2007 PAGE 7 OF 9 16. IN THE CASE OF SANJAY BEHERA IN IT(S S)A. NO. 39 TO 44/CTK/2009, THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL ISSUE REPRESENTING THE PAYMENT OF UNSECURED LOAN WHICH HAS BEEN TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS ISSUE RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THA T THIS ISSUE MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS SIMILAR TO THE ISSUE IN RESPECT OF THE UNSECURED LOANS IN THE CASE OF SATYABRATA BEHERA. LD. CIT(DR) REITERATED HIS STAND IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE OF UNSECURED LOANS IN THE CASE OF S ATYABRATA BEHERA. THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PRESSING GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 OF ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ORIGINAL GROUNDS FILED IN ALL THESE APPEALS. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PRESSING GROUNDS NO. 4 & 5 OF THE APPALS FILED FOR THE A.Y. 2000 - 01 (IT(SS)A. NOS. 39/CTK/2009 ), A.Y. 2002 - 03 (IT(SS)A. NO. 40/CTK/2009), A .Y. 2004 - 05 (IT(SS)A. NO. 42/CTK/2009) AND A .Y. 2006 - 07 (IT(SS)A. NO. 44/CTK/2009). THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PRESSING GROUNDS NO. 5 & 6 OF THE APPEAL FILED FOR THE A.Y. 2003 - 04 (IT(SS)A. NO. 41/CTK/2009 ) AND A.Y. 20 05 - 06 (IT(SS)A. NO. 43/CTK/2009). CONSEQUENTLY THE SAID GROUNDS STAND DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS THE ISSUE OF UNSECURED LOANS IN THE CASE OF SHRI SATYABRATA BEHERA HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER FOR RE - ADJUDICATION AFTER GRANTING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD ON IDENTICAL GROUND, THIS ISSUE IS ALSO RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE - ADJUDICATION. 18. IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE OF PEAK CREDIT IN THE CAS E OF SANJAY BEHERA, IT IS NOTICED THAT THIS ISSUE IS IN RELATION TO ONLY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003 - 04 AND 2005 - 06. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04, THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IS RS.5,00,000/ - FOR WHICH IDENTICAL ARGUMENT HAD BEEN RAISED BY BOTH THE SIDES A S IN CASE OF THE SA TYABRATA BEHERA AND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 THE ADDITION IS OF I.T. (S . S) A. NO S . 3 9 - 44 / CTK ./20 09 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 200 0 - 20 0 1 & 2002 - 03 TO 2006 - 2007 & IT(SS)A. NOS. 33 - 38/CTK/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 200 1 - 2002 TO 2006 - 2007 PAGE 8 OF 9 RS.1,00,000/ - . A FTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION ON THE SIMILAR LINES AS THE ISSUE OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED ON TH E BASIS OF PEAK CREDIT IN THE CASE OF SATYABRATA BEHERA, IN THE CASE OF SANJAY BEHERA THE ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 STANDS CONFIRMED AND THE ADDITION OF RS.1,00,000/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 STANDS DELETED. 19. THE ISSUES HAVING BEEN DECIDED IN EACH OF THE APPEALS ARE ADJUDICATED INDIVIDUALLY. 20 . IT(SS)A. NO. 33/CTK/2009 : GROUND NO. 3 REGARDING UNSECURED LOAN IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. GROUND NO. 4 REGARDING UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IS CONFIRMED. IT(SS) A. NO. 34/CTK/2009 : GROUND NO. 3 REGARDING UNSECURED LOAN IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. IN GROUND NO. 4 REGARDING UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT, ADDITION REDUCED TO RS.12,25,750/ - . IT(SS)A. NO. 35/CTK/2009 : GROUND NO.3 REGARDING UNSECURED LOAN IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. GROUND NO. 4 REGARDING UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT STANDS DELETED ALLOWED. IT(SS)A. NO. 36/CTK/2009 : GROUND NO. 3 REGARDING UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. IT(SS)A . NO. 37/ CTK/200 9 : GROUND NO. 3 REGARDING UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. GROUND NO. 4 REGARDING UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IS DELETED ALLOWED. IT(SS)A. NO. 38/CTK/2009 : GROUND NO.3 REGARDING UNDISCLOSED INVESTM ENT IN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. GROUND NO. 4 REGARDING UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IS DELETED - ALLOWED. IT(SS)A. N O . 39/CTK/2009 SANJAY BEHERA : GROUND NO. 3 REGARDING REPAYMENT OF UNSECURED LOAN IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. IT(SS)A. NO. 40/CTK/2009 : GROUND NO. 3 REGARDING UNSECURED LOAN IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. I.T. (S . S) A. NO S . 3 9 - 44 / CTK ./20 09 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 200 0 - 20 0 1 & 2002 - 03 TO 2006 - 2007 & IT(SS)A. NOS. 33 - 38/CTK/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 200 1 - 2002 TO 2006 - 2007 PAGE 9 OF 9 IT(SS)A. NO. 41/CTK/2009 : GROUND NO. 3 REGARDING UNSECURED LOAN IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. GROUND NO. 4 REGARDING UNEXPLAINED CASH D EPOSITS IS CONFIRMED AT RS.5,00,000/ -- DISMISSED. IT(SS)A. N O . 42/CTK/2009 : GROUND NO. 3 REGARDING INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. IT(SS)A. NO. 43/CTK/2009 : GROUND NO. 3 REGARDING INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. IN GROUND NO. 4 REGARDING UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT, THE ADDITION OF RS.1,00,000/ - IS DELETED - ALLOWED. IT(SS)A. NO. 44/CTK/2009 : GROUND NO. 3 REGARDING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IS ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. 2 1 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS IN THE CASE OF SHRI SATYABRATA BEHERA IN IT(SS)A. NOS. 33 TO 38/CTK/2009 AND THE APPEALS IN THE CASE OF SHRI SANJAY B E HERA IN IT(SS)A. NOS. 39 TO 44/CTK/2009 ARE DISPOSED OF IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH OCTOBER , 2014. SD/ - SD/ - S .V. MEHROTRA GEORGE MATHAN ( ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ( JUDICIAL MEMBER) KOLKATA, THE 17 TH D AY OF OCTO BER , 201 4 COPIES TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE (2) THE DEPARTMENT (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( 5 ) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ( 6 ) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK LAHA/SR. P.S.