Dr.M.Kunhabdulla, CHENNAI V. DCIT (i/c), CHENNAI

ITSSA 7/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8367 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 05-09-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUPAMA SHUKLA IRS
• Keywords: Block assessment

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T(SS).A.NO. 07/MDS/2012 BLOCK PERIOD : 1996-97 TO 2001-02 FROM 1.4.2002 T O 22.1.2003 DR. M. KUNHABDULLA, 39 WALL TAX ROAD, CHENNAI 600 072. PAN AFPPK4137E VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (I/C) CENTRAL CIRCLE-II(3), CHENNAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : MS. ANUPAMA SHUKLA, IRS, CIT DATE OF HEARING : 5 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 5 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 O R D E R PER DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT THIS IS A BLOCK-ASSESSMENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COM MISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-II AT CHENNAI DATED 27.10.2011 AND ARISES IT(SS)A 07/12 :- 2 -: OUT OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SEC. 158BC, READ WITH SEC.143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL RELATE TO CERTAIN ADDITIONS AND DISALLOWANCE CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS). IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE E THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NO T DELETING THE ADDITIONS OF ` 1,00,000/- EACH IN RESPECT OF THE DEPOSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON 15.5.2001 AND 19.5.2001. HE HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THOSE TWO ADDITIONS AS UNEXPLAINED INCOM E. LIKEWISE, THE THIRD ITEM AGITATED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 1,58,000/- EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AS AGRICULTURA L INCOME. 3. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED ON FOR HEARING, NOBOD Y WAS PRESENT FOR THE APPELLANT-ASSESSEE, IN SPITE OF SER VICE OF NOTICE. THEREFORE, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE MATTER EX P ARTE, QUA, THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HEARD SMT. ANUPAMA SHUKLA, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WHO APPEARED AND ARGUED THE CASE FOR THE REVENUE. 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAS CONF IRMED THE ADDITIONS OF ` 1,00,000/- EACH TOTALLING TO ` 2 LAKHS ON THE IT(SS)A 07/12 :- 3 -: GROUND OF INCONSISTENCIES IN THE EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AT DIFFERENT POINTS OF TIME. AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED THAT THE DEPOSITS DID NOT BELON G TO HIM, BUT THEY BELONGED TO M/S. KERALA ROADWAYS PVT. LTD. TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT IN THE IMPUGNED CASE WAS COMPLETED ON 31 .1.2005 AND THE ASSESSEE HAD A PERIOD OF LONG TWO YEARS TO EXPLAIN HIS POSITION IN A CONVINCING MANNER. WITHOUT DOING THE SAME IN THE ASSESSMENT AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT HE HAD HIS OWN SOURCES TO EXPLAIN THOSE DEPOSI TS. THESE ARGUMENTS ARE APPARENTLY CONTRADICTORY. FURTHER, T HE ASSESSEE HAD NO CONVINCING EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE SOURCES AV AILABLE IN HIS HANDS. WHAT HE HAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) IS, LETTERS FROM THE BANK CONFI RMING THE DEPOSITS. THOSE PAPERS ONLY CONFIRM THE DEPOSITS W HICH ARE EVEN OTHERWISE REFLECTED IN ASSESSEES OWN STATEMENT. T HE CONFIRMATION LETTERS ISSUED BY THE BANK DO NOT EXPL AIN THE SOURCES AVAILABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD. IT(SS)A 07/12 :- 4 -: 6. REGARDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 1,58,000/- PERTAINING TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHE D ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES EXCEPT STATING THAT HE HAD I NHERITED THE PROPERTY FROM HIS MOTHER. IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDEN CES RELATING TO LAND HOLDING, TYPE OF CROPS AND THE LEVEL OF INCOME , IT IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE LOWER AUTHORITIES TO ACCEPT THE C ONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCE IS ALS O JUSTIFIED. 7. IN RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING ON WEDNESDAY, THE 5 TH OF SEPTEMBER, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) (DR.O.K.NAR AYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 5 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 MPO* COPY TO : APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR