Smt. K.Kannathal, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITSSA 51/CHNY/2004

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2527 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 12 year(s) 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 04-08-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2004
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T R SENTHIL KUMAR SR
• Assessee Lawyers: N DEVANATHAN
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Assessment record; Block assessment; Onus to prove
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : CHENNAI , . ! ' , # '$ % [ BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ] ./ I.T.(SS)A.NO.51/MDS/2004 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1985 TO 23.11.1995 S MT. K. KANNATHAL 33, I MAIN ROAD R.K. NAGAR CHENNAI 600 028 VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE II(1) CHENNAI [PAN AGEPK 2422 J] ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI N. DEVANATHAN, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR, SR. STANDING COUNSEL / DATE OF HEARING : 04 - 08 - 2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 - 10 - 2016 * / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II(1), CHENNAI, DATED 31.3.2004 PASSED U/S 158BC R.W.S 143(3) OF T HE ACT FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1985 TO 23.11.1995. 2. THE LD. AR HAS NOT PRESSED GROUND NO.1(A) TO (D) A ND MADE AN ENDORSEMENT TO THIS EFFECT IN THE APPEAL FOLDER. HENCE, GROUND NO.1 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. IT(SS)A NO. 51/04 :- 2 -: 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A N INDIVIDUAL AND THERE WAS A SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSE SSEE ON 23.11.1997. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED NOTIC E U/S 158BC OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSEE IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE, FIL ED RETURN OF INCOME ON 26.10.1996 AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY DETER MINING A TOTAL INCOME OF ` 35,98,000/- ON 28.11.1996. AGAINST THE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND TH E TRIBUNAL ON THE GROUND OF VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTIC E AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT OFFERED OPPORTUNITY UNDER THE LAW, THE ASSE SSMENT WAS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ORDER DATED 28.6.2002 AND SUBSEQUENT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE A SSESSING AUTHORITY TOOK UP THE CASE ON 15.9.2003. IN THE COURSE OF HE ARING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURC HASED PROPERTY BEING 1/3 RD SHARE IN BAGIRATHIAMMAL STREET, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI, AND THE ASSESSEE PAID A CONSIDERATION OF ` 17.5 LAKHS TO THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY SHRI M. TIRUPATHI REDDY AND SMT. M. MASTHA NAMMA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE STATEMENT OF SHRI M. TIRUP ATHI REDDY MADE AN ADDITION OF ` 3.3 LAKHS BEING THE 1/3 RD OF ` 10 LAKHS PAID AS ON-MONEY BY THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH OTHER TWO CO-OWNERS AND THE TOTAL INVESTMENT IN RESPECT OF THIS 1/3 RD PROPERTY INCLUDING REGISTRATION CHARGES WAS ` 23.33 LAKHS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ELABORATE DISCUSSIONS AT PAGE 2 OF HIS ORDER WHERE THE ASSES SEE HAS EXPLAINED IT(SS)A NO. 51/04 :- 3 -: THAT THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION WAS ` 17.5 LAKHS AND REGISTRATION CHARGES WAS ` 2.5 LAKHS AND THE CONSIDERATION OF ` 17.5 LAKHS WAS PAID OUT OF THE SOURCES AS EXPLAINED BY LETTER DATED 31. 10.2003 WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE INTEREST INCOME EAR NED DURING THE BLOCK PERIOD ` 5,95,200/-, ` 1,34,800/- ON SALE OF JEWELLERY AND ` 2 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED AS HAND LOANS FROM RELATIVES AND FRIENDS. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS UTILIZED THE SOURCE OF HUSBANDS AGRICULTURAL INCOME BEING 50% IN 37.78 ACRES OF LAND, ` 10,70,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS OF THE HU SBAND AND ALSO THE CERTIFICATE ESTIMATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. ON THE ISSUE OF SALE OF JEWELLERY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS SOLD THE JEWELLERY TO SEVEN PERSONS AND ALSO AFFIDAVITS WERE FILED. BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE SOURCE S OF SALE OF JEWELLERY AND ALSO THE AFFIDAVITS BY THE PURCHASERS WHERE THE Y HAVE CONFIRMED THE PURCHASE OF GOLD AND PAYMENT OF CASH. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER MADE ELABORATE DISCUSSION AT PAGES 3 & 4 OF HIS ORD ER AND HAVING NOT SATISFIED WITH THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE EVIDENCE, CA ME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IS NOT GENUIN E AND WAS REJECTED. FURTHER, IN RESPECT OF THE HAND LOANS FROM FRIENDS AND RELATIVES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBTAINED THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM THE PERSONS WHO ARE HOLDING AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND THIS AMOUNT WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LAND OWNERS THAT THEY HAVE ADVANCED MONIES DURI NG THE FINANCIAL IT(SS)A NO. 51/04 :- 4 -: YEAR IN THE BLOCK PERIOD AND ALSO THEY HAVE SUBSTAN TIAL SOURCE WITH RESPECT TO THE ADVANCE OF MONEY. BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISBELIEVED THE FACTS AND ALSO THE SOURCE AND REJEC TED THE HAND LOANS OF ` 2 LAKHS OBTAINED FROM THESE PEOPLE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINED THAT SHE HAS UTILIZED 50% AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHARE OF HUSBANDS HOLDING 37.78ACRES OF LAND AGGREGATING TO ` 10,70,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE CALLED FOR THE INCO ME TAX ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND ALSO THE CERTIFICATE FROM THE VILLAGE A DMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, ADAPADIKKI VILLAGE, AND FOUND THAT IN THE ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND HAS DISCLOSED LOWER AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHEREAS THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VAO IS ON HIGHER SIDE . THERE BEING A CONFLICTING VERSIONS AND THERE IS NO PROPER PROOF T HAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY SALE IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS 37.78 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THE EXPLANA TION OFFERED TOWARDS THE SOURCE OF ` 10,70,000/- WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION O F ` 23.33 LAKHS IN RESPECT OF THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. 4. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR ARGUED THAT IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND ONLY THE SALE DEED WAS AVAILABLE AND WAS CONSIDERED . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RELIED ON THE STATEMENT OF SHRI M. TIRU PATHI REDDY AND MADE ADDITION OF ` 3.3 LAKHS IN RESPECT OF ASSESSEES SHARE. HE IT(SS)A NO. 51/04 :- 5 -: FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON SIMILAR ISSUE IN RESPECT OF OTHER CO-OWNER SHRI T. JAYABHARATHI, THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED T HE FACTS AND FOUND THAT SHRI M. TIRUPATHI REDDY, SELLER WAS NOT CROSS EXAMINED AND THEREFORE, HIS STATEMENT CANNOT BE ITSELF CONSIDERE D AS AN EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION AND ALSO SUPPORTED THE ARGUMEN TS WITH THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF P. V. KALYANASUNDARAM, 294 ITR 49, IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT OF ON-MONEY AND PRAYED FOR DELETION OF ` 3.3 LAKHS. FURTHER, THE SOURCE FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY BEING THE INCOME EARNED DURING THE BLOCK PERIOD, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADVANCED THIS MONIES IN THE EARLI ER YEARS AND THE BORROWERS HAVE CONFIRMED THE RECEIPT OF LOAN AND PA YMENT OF INTEREST AND REPAYMENT OF LOAN WITH AFFIDAVITS. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISBELIEVED THE SALE OF JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF ` 1,34,800/-. IN THAT CASE, THE PURCHASERS OF THE JEWELLERY HAVE CONFIRME D THE PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY AND ALSO PAYMENT OF CASH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO MADE AN ADDITION TOWARDS HAND LOAN RECEIVED FROM FR IENDS AND RELATIVES DISBELIEVING THE AFFIDAVITS EXPLAINING TH E CORRECTNESS AND THE CAPACITY OF THE LENDER FOR ADVANCING MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE AND IN RESPECT OF ASSESSEES SHARE OF INCOME OBTAINED FRO M HUSBANDS AGRICULTURAL LAND, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A CERTIF ICATE FROM THE VAO AND THE ASSESSEES HUSBANDS INCOME TAX RETURNS DISCLO SING INCOME. THE CERTIFICATE OF VAO CANNOT BE IMPEACHED IN THE ABSEN CE OF ANY OTHER IT(SS)A NO. 51/04 :- 6 -: CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE AND NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE CASE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISBEL IEVED THE SOURCES AND NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIAT E THE STAND THAT THERE IS AMBIGUITY IN RESPECT OF SOURCES. SIMILAR ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. T. JAYABARATHI IN I.T.(SS)A.NO. 83/MDS/2006 DATED 7.12.2007 WHERE THESE FACTS WERE CONSIDERED AND ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND PRAYED FOR D ELETION OF THIS ADDITION. 5. CONTRA, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER AND ALLEGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXP LAINED THE SOURCES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEY ARE NOT SUPPO RTED WITH PROPER EVIDENCE AND ALSO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CREDITORS WHO HAVE ADVANCED LOAN AND DISPUTED THE MATERIAL PAPERS FILED IN THE COURSE OF HEARING PROCEEDINGS AND PRAYED FOR DISMISSING THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIA L ON RECORD AND THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS. ON PERUSAL OF T HE ASSESSMENT RECORDS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED T HE EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF SALE OF JEWELLERY AND ALSO CONFIRMATION LETTERS OBTAINED FROM VARIOUS PARTIES. THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO CONFIRMED THE ADVANCING OF MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE WHO IS HOLDING THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. TH E ASSESSEE HAS IT(SS)A NO. 51/04 :- 7 -: RECEIVED AMOUNT FROM RAJARATNAM GROUP OF COMPANY A ND THE FACT THAT THE MONEY HAS COME THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND IT IS NOT DISPUTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EVEN DISBELIEV ED THESE FACTS THAT THE MONEY HAS ROUTED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND AL SO CONFIRMED BY THE MANAGER OF RAJARATNAM GROUP THAT THE AMOUNT WAS REFUNDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED CONFI RMATION LETTERS FROM VARIOUS PARTIES AS PROOF FOR SALE OF JEWELLERY. BU T THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE THA T THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS PERSONS AND IN RESPECT O F ON-MONEY PAYMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION OF ` 3.3 LAKHS ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT OF THE SELLER SHRI M. TIRUPA THI REDDY. THE STATEMENT CANNOT BE ITSELF BE CONSIDERED AS AN EVID ENCE OF PAYMENT OF ON-MONEY AS PER THE DECISION OF SUPREME COURT IN TH E CASE OF P.V. KALYANASUNDARAM(SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE . WITH THIS OBSERVATION, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DEL ETE THE ADDITION OF ` 23.33 LAKHS AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE HOUSE PROPERTY. 7. THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED A LOAN OF ` 10 LAKHS FROM SHRI SINNIAH BOSE AND THIS AMOUNT WAS CREDITED TO THE AC COUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH OTHER INVESTMENTS. OUT OF THIS SOURCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN TALENT PAPER & BOAR D. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT SHE IS ONE OF THE PROMOTERS OF THE SAID COMPANY AND OBTAINED A NON-RESIDENT LOAN FROM SHRI SINNIAH BOSE IN IT(SS)A NO. 51/04 :- 8 -: COMPLIANCE TO THE CONDITIONS AND PERMISSION FROM RE SERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ASSESSEE HAS SUBSTANTIATED ITS SOURCE BY PROVIDING THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR, CREDITWORTHINESS AND ALSO APPROVAL OF RBI. THE RBI HAS GIVEN EX-POST FACTO APPROVAL IN THE NORMAL COURSE AND TO SUPPORT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL , THE ASSESSEE FILED VARIOUS DOCUMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON FURTHER INVESTIGATION, FOUND THAT SHRI SINNIAH BOSE HAS GIV EN LOANS TO VARIOUS PARTIES AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DEALT WITH EL ABORATELY ON THE FINANCIAL STATUS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF SHRI SINNI AH BOSE AT PAGES 9 TO 11 OF HIS ORDER AND FOUND THAT SHRI SINNIAH BOSE HA D ARRANGED FUNDS FROM HIS ASSOCIATE SHRI YOUSUF ALI SHAHOD RAHMAN, A UAE NATIONAL AT AJMAN, AND THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY SHRI SINNI AH BOSE WITH THE ASSOCIATE WAS ALSO PRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS. BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELYING ON THE JUDICIAL DECISION, FOUND THAT THE LENDER DOES NOT HAVE CREDITWORTHINESS AND THE THE GENUINEN ESS OF THE TRANSACTION COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED AND MADE ADDIT ION OF `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` 10 LAKHS AND COMPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF LOAN TRANSACTION WITH SHRI SINNIAH BOSE AND SAID LOAN AMOUNT WAS REPAID B Y THE ASSESSEE AND PRODUCED DETAILS OF CHEQUE AND BANK ACCOUNTS. BUT IN THE CASE OF SHRI P.R GANAPATHY AND SMT. T. KANNAKI IN I.T.A.NOS .310 & 311/MDS/2002 AND 148/MDS/2002 DATED 9.2.2004, EARLI ER THE TRIBUNAL HAS DEALT ON GIFT FROM NRI AND HON'BLE SUPREME COUR T HAS SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN CIT VS P.R. GANAPATHY, 254 CT R 0336(SC) WHEREIN THE FINANCIAL CAPACITY OF DONOR WAS NOT SUP PORTED WITH ADEQUATE FUNDS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, SHRI SINNIAH BOSE HAS ADVANCED ` 10 LAKHS TO THE ASSESSEE AND SUPPORTED WITH CONFI RMATION LETTER AND AGREEMENT OF SHRI YOUSUF ALI SHAHOD RAHMAN AND CONF IRMATION DATED 01.8.1997. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSE SSEE HAS IT(SS)A NO. 51/04 :- 10 -: EXPLAINED SOURCE OF SOURCE OF LOAN AND THE LD. ASS ESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION AS UNEXPLAINED LOAN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R AND FURTHER REPAYMENT OF LOAN BY THE ASSESSEE SUBSEQUENTLY SUP PORTED BY THE FINANCIAL DETAILS ARE NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE I N THE HEARING PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WE ARE OF THE OP INION THAT THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF LOAN TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED LOAN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE WITHO UT BASIS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS REPAID THE LOAN WHICH WAS OBTAINE D FOR INVESTMENT IN THE COMPANY. THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 11. THE LAST GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ON VERIFICATION OF THE BANK A CCOUNT WITH CITY UNION BANK LTD FOUND THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN UNEXPLA INED CREDITS WHICH COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE CREDI TED IN CITY UNION BANK INCLUDING THE AMOUNT OF LOAN RECEIVED FROM NON -RESIDENT. ON RECONCILIATION OF THE TOTAL BANK CREDITS AND THE PA YMENTS, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE CREDIT TO THE EXTENT OF ` 2.65 LAKHS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY FOUND THAT THE EX PLANATION ENVISAGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINE D CREDIT IS NOT PROPERLY SUPPORTED EXCEPT THE SOURCES OF INVESTMENT S IN THE BANK. IT(SS)A NO. 51/04 :- 11 -: 12. THE LD. AR ARGUED THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS UNDISCLOSED IN COME AND ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS. FURTHER, THESE C REDITS WERE THE SOURCES MADE FOR INVESTMENT IN HOUSE PROPERTY AND ALSO FOR INVESTMENT IN THE COMPANY AND PRAYED THAT THE AMOUNT DOES NOT RELATE D TO ANY SEIZED MATERIAL AND THEREFORE, ADDITION BE DELETED. 13. CONTRA, THE LD. DR OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS AND R ELIED ON THE ORDER AND THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE IN DEPTH ON EACH CREDIT IN THE BANK ACCOU NT. 14. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIA L ON RECORD AND THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS. ON PERUSAL OF T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGE 16, THERE ARE CERTAIN CREDITS IN THE BANK A CCOUNT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DEALT WITH ALL THE CREDITS IN DEPENDENTLY AND ALSO THE LD. AR SUPPORTED THE CASE IN RESPECT OF THE CRE DIT/SOURCE FOR INVESTMENT THROUGH BANK ACCOUNT. EVEN IN THE ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED RECONCILI ATION OF BANK ACCOUNT NOR CASH FLOW STATEMENT WITH OPENING BALANCE AND TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING NOT SATISFIED, MADE AN ADDITION. W E ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE GENUINEN ESS OF TRANSACTION TO THE EXTENT OF ` 2.65 LAKHS AND THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF ` 2.65 LAKHS. IT(SS)A NO. 51/04 :- 12 -: 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PART LY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 28 TH OCTOBER, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . ! ' ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) # / JUDICIAL MEMBER / CHENNAI !' / DATED: 28 TH OCTOBER, 2016 RD '#$%&'& / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 4. ( / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. &) *$$+, / DR 3. (-. / CIT(A) 6. * /01 / GF