Janaki Mudali, Bhubaneswar V. ACIT, Bhubaneswar

ITSSA 95/CTK/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7528 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 20-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 14-10-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARAMITA TRIPATHY
• Assessee Lawyers: BIBEK MOHANTY
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Gift; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Salary income; Charitable institution; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE : SHRI K.K.GUPTA, AM, AND SHRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO, JM IT (SS) A NO S . 95,96,97,98,99,100, AND 101/CTK/2011 (A Y S 2001 - 02, 2002 - 03,2003 - 04,2004 - 05,2005 - 06,2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08) SMT. JANAKI MUDALI, PLOT NO.122, SAHID NAGAR, BHUBANESWAR PAN: ABHPM 1855 D. VERSUS ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), BHUBANESWAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI BIBEK MOHANTY, AR FOR THE RESPONDENT SMT. PARAMITA TRIPATHY, DR DATE OF HEARING : 20.03.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.04.2012 ORDER PER BENCH : THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) DATED THE 30 TH JUNE, 2011 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENTS MADE U/S.153A( B)/143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE AYS 2001 - 02, 2002 - 03, 2003 - 04, 2004 - 05, 2005 - 06,2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08. ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE NOW BEING DISPOSED BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. HE DERIVES INCOME FROM SALARY AND OTHER SOURCES BUT MAINTAINED NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED IN THE MUDALI GROUP OF CASES U/S.132 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT ON 23.8.2006. NOTICE U/S.153A(A) W AS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURNS FOR ALL THE AYS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENTS U/S.153A(B)/143(3) OF THE ACT BY MAKING VARIOUS ADDITION S. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER IT(SS)A NOS.95,96,97,98,99,100, AND 101/CTK/2011 2 CONSIDERING THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS AND VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN EACH O F THE AYS UNDER CONSIDERATION. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEALS HERE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02 THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED A SUM OF 14,00,000 FLAT NO.A/264, NEW FRIENDS COLONY, NEW DELHI. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED A SUM OF 9,27,000 TOWARDS THIS FLAT BY DEMAND DRAFT OUT OF HER SALARY INCOME, RENTAL INCOME AND RETIREMENT BENEFITS. FOR THE REMAIN ING 4,73,000 THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE BORROWED LOANS AND FURTHER CLAIMED THAT SHE HAS TAKEN CASH LOANS TO THE TUNE OF 1,00,000. OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE GENUINENESS OF THESE LOAN TRANSACTIONS, IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF LOAN CREDITORS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF LOAN OF 4,73,000 AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. HE HOWEVER DID NOT MAKE ADDITION OF 1,00,000 IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED LOAN. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITI ON OF 4,73,000. 3.1. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS AS WERE RAISED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN ITS REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME FOR PURCHASE OF I MMOVABLE PROPERTY I.E., FLAT AT NEW DELHI TO THE TUNE OF 14,00,000 OUT OF HER RETIREMENT BENEFIT AND UNSECURED LOAN FROM FRIENDS AND RELATIVES. THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED THE CASH AND BANK FLOW SUMMARY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE DETAILS OF WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), INDICATING THAT THE ASSESSEE IT(SS)A NOS.95,96,97,98,99,100, AND 101/CTK/2011 3 HAD ADEQUATE SOURCE OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS, SALARY INCOME, RENT INCOME AND UNSECURED LOAN FROM FRIENDS AND RELATIVES TO JUSTIFY THE PURCHASE OF FLAT AT NEW DEL HI AMOUNTING TO 14,00,000 . AS REGARDS THE UNSECURED CASH LOAN OF 1,00,000 FROM AS MANY AS SIX PERSONS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS INCLUDING THE PAN NUMBERS OF FIVE PERSONS, LOAN CONFIRMATIONS ETC. ON THESE BASIS, THE LEARNED AR OF THE AS SESSEE VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED ALL THE DETAILS, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE INVESTMENT AS UNEXPLAINED. HE PRAYED FOR DELETION OF THE ADDITION OF 4,73,000. 3.2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PE RUSED THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION IN MAKING ADDITION OF 4,73,000 AS UNEXPLAINED. ON PERUSAL OF CASH AND BANK FLOW STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AS R EPRODUCED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED SALARY INCOME, BANK INTEREST, SALE OF JEWEELLERY, ADVANCE RECOVERY FROM RELATIVES, UNSECURED LOANS ETC., AND THUS THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT FUNDS SO AS MAKE INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF FLAT IN QUESTION AT 14,00,000. WHEN THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE INVESTMENT TO THE EXTENT OF 9,27,000 THE SAME HAVING BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE BY DEMAND DRAFT OUT OF HER SALARY INCOME, RENTAL INCOME AND RETIREMENT BENEFITS, WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF 4,73,000 COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED HAVING BEEN INVESTED OUT OF THE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING THE UNSECURED LOAN OF 1,00,000 AS PER THE CASH AND BANK FLOW STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE CASH LOANS, THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ALL THE DETAILS REGARDING CASH LOANS FROM SIX PERSONS INCLUDING THE PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS (EXCEPT IN ONE CASE), THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS IT(SS)A NOS.95,96,97,98,99,100, AND 101/CTK/2011 4 WELL AS THE LEARNED CIT(A) WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN DOUBTING THE GENUINENESS OF SUCH CASH LOANS WITHOUT EXAMINING THE DETAILS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE . IN SUCH A SITUATION WE WOULD HAVE REMANDED THE CASE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS BUT REFRAIN FOR SO DOING AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT MAKE ANY ADDI TION IN THIS REGARD. HE HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF 4,73,000 AND WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADEQUATE FUNDS TO MAKE THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT OF 14,00,000. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF 4,73,000 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LE ARNED CIT(A) AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND AS SUCH, WE DIRECT DELETION OF THE SAID ADDITION. 4. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISPUTED ONE ISSUE RELATING TO SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION OF 50,000 TREATING THE SAME AS UNEX PLAINED CASH CREDIT. 4.1. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE CREDITORS AND ALSO THE DETAIL S OF THE THREE LENDERS, NAMELY BRAJA BALAVA DAS, CHAKRADHAR PRADHAN, AND CHANDRA SEKHAR DAS INCLUDING PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS IN THE CASE OF CHAKRADHAR PRADHAN, CHANDRA SEKHAR DAS. WE FIND THAT WITHOUT EXAMINING ALL SUCH DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LEARN ED CIT(A) ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THE SUM OF 50,000 AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. FOR THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE SAME TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH BY CONSIDERING THE SUPPO RTIVE MATERIALS PRODUCED BY THE IT(SS)A NOS.95,96,97,98,99,100, AND 101/CTK/2011 5 ASSESSEE AND PASS CONSEQUENT ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION OF 1,00,000 HOLDING THE SAME AS UNEXPLA INED CASH CREDIT AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE SAME, WHICH IS IN CHALLENGE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5.1. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS OF C ASH CREDITS FROM SIX PERSONS ALONG WITH THEIR PAN, WHICH HAS BEEN ABSTRACTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN PARAGRAPH 3 AT PAGE 4 OF HIS ORDER BUT WITHOUT EXAMINING THE SAME THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE HELD THE AMOUNT OF 1,00,000 AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT, WHI CH IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THEREFORE, FOR THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE SAME TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH BY CONSIDERING THE SUPPOR TIVE MATERIALS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND PASS CONSEQUENT ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 5.2. IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN ADDITION 2,06,000 AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN M/S.MAMATA, WHICH HAVING BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5.3. HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD . THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE US THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WITHOUT GIVING COGNIZANCE TO THE BANK/CASH FLOW STATEMENT FILED, HAVE ARBITRARILY MADE/SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF 2,06,000 AS UNEXPLAINED IT(SS)A NOS.95,96,97,98,99,100, AND 101/CTK/2011 6 INVEST MENT WHEREAS THE FIGURES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AT 1,99,522. WE HAVE PERUSED THE BANK/CASH FLOW STATEMENT AS REPRODUCED IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF 1,99,522 ON LAND AT PATRAKANA AND NOT 2,06, 000 AS STATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER. WE FURTHER FIND FROM THE SAID BANK/CASH FLOW STATEMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADEQUATE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH HIM HAVING SALARY INCOME, RENTAL INCOME, INTEREST INCOME, MATURITY OF NSC BESIDES UNSECURED LOAN , SO AS TO MAKE THE INVESTMENT IN QUESTION FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE SUFFICIENT AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS WITH THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO MAKE INVESTMENT ON PURCHASE OF LAND DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF 2,06,0 00 (WRONGLY FOR 1,99,522) MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) CANNOT BE SUSTAINED, AS RIGHTLY CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT DELETION OF THE SAID ADDITION BY ALLOWING THE GROUND RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. 6. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF 2,00,000 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05, AFTER HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING TH E IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS OF CASH CREDITS FROM ELEVEN PERSONS ALONG WITH THEIR PAN WHERE THERE IS AVAILABLE, WHICH HAS BEEN ABSTRACTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN PARAGRAPH 3 AT PAGE 4 OF HIS ORDER BUT WITHOUT EXAMINING THE SAME THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE HELD THE AMOUNT OF 2,00,000 AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT, WHICH IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THEREFORE, FOR THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARN ED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE SAME TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING IT(SS)A NOS.95,96,97,98,99,100, AND 101/CTK/2011 7 OFFICER FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH BY CONSIDERING THE SUPPORTIVE MATERIALS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND PASS CONSEQUENT ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF 3,00,000 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) TOWARDS TRUST CONTRIBUTION, AFTER HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIFTED A LAND V ALUED 6,00,000 WHICH WAS IN THE JOINT NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HER SPOUSE TO S.J.CHARITABLE TRUST. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE GIFT HAD NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE NOR THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT IN THIS LAND WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF 3,00,000 (CONSIDERING EQUAL SHARE IN THE LAND BY THE ASSESSEE AND HER SPOUSE) AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAME. 7.1. HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL MADE AVAILABLE TO THE TRIBUNAL. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS WERE RAISED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND CONTENDED THAT BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT DT.10/11.2 .2010 IN THE CASE OF S.J.CHARITABL E TRUST FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 HAS SPECIFICALLY ACCEPTED THE CONTRIBUTION RECEIVED BY THE TRUST FROM TRUSTEES AS GENUINE THAT TO BE MORE SPECIFIC THE GRANT IN KIND OF 6,00,000 (50% BEING ASSESSEES SHARE). IN THA T VIEW OF THE MATER, WHEN AT THE RECEIVING END THE SAME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT, AT THE PAYMENT SIDE, THE LAND BEING PART OF ANCESTRAL PROPERTY, THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED . THE LEARNED DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE ABOVE IT(SS)A NOS.95,96,97,98,99,100, AND 101/CTK/2011 8 SUBMISSION S OF THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY DISCLOSED THE GIFT IN THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS, WHICH HAS BEEN MET OUT FROM ANCESTRAL PROPERTY. THEREFORE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW A RE NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF 3,00,000 AND AS SUCH, WE DIRECT DELETION OF THE SAID ADDITION. 8. AN ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS COMMON RELATES TO ADDITIONS OF 10,000, 20,000, 35,000 MADE IN THE AYS 2005 - 06, 20 06 - 07 AND 2007 - 08 RESPECTIVELY DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND HOLDING THE ABOVE AMOUNTS AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES, AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF HER AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 9. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PAR TIES AND PERUSING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION IN THIS REGARD HAS BEEN MADE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF HER AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE CONTE NDED BEFORE US THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FROM THE JURISDICTIONAL TAHASILDAR, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW DID GIVE ANY COGNIZANCE TO THE SAME AND TREATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODU CED THE COPY OF SUCH CERTIFICATE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. FURTHER, THE FACT OF EARNING AGRICULTURAL INCOME CANNOT BE PROVED FROM A MERE CERTIFICATE OF TAHASILDAR, WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO PROVE THE SAME BY PRODUCI NG SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO THE EFFECT THAT IT HAD ACTUALLY EARNED SUCH INCOME BY SELLING THE PRODUCES OBTAINED FROM AGRICULTURAL OPERATION, AS RIGHTLY CONTENDED BY THE IT(SS)A NOS.95,96,97,98,99,100, AND 101/CTK/2011 9 LEARNED DR , WHICH IS LACKING IN THE PRESENT CASE AT HAND. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE HAVE NO HESITATION TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS COUNT IN THE RESPECTIVE AYS 2005 - 06, 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08. THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS ARE CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE IS DISMISSED. 10. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF 2,50, 000 AND 4,00,000 MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 ON ACCOUNT OF CONTRIBUTION TO S.J.CHARITABLE TRUST AND INVESTMENT IN M/S.MAMATA, AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE A SSESSEE BOTH THE CONTRIBUTION AND INVESTMENT WERE MET OUT OF CASH LOANS AND CURRENT YEARS INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD THE CASH LOANS WERE NOT VERIFIABLE BUT HOWEVER HE DID NOT MADE ANY ADDITION TOWARDS UNSECURED LOAN SINCE HE ADDED THE CONTRIBUT ION AND INVESTMENT AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. WE FIND FROM THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH HIM INCLUDING THE UNSECURED LOAN TO MEET THE ABOVE EXPENDITURES. FROM THE DETAILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THE PERSONAL LOANS TO THE EXTENT OF 4,00,000 AS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF LOAN, NAME OF THE LENDER, AMOUNT AND ALSO THEIR INDIVIDUAL PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER, WHICH HAVE BEEN RE PRODUCED IN PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ALL SUCH DETAILS INCLUDING PAN OF THE LENDERS, WITHOUT BRINGING ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE NO T AT ALL JUSTIFIED IN DISBELIEVING THE UNSECURED LOA N. IN SUCH VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ASSESSING AUTHORITIES WERE FURTHER NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THE CONTRIBUTION OF 2,50,000 TO S.J.CHARITABLE TRUST AND 4,00,000 INVESTMENT IN MAMATA, AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE IT(SS)A NOS.95,96,97,98,99,100, AND 101/CTK/2011 10 DELETION OF BOT H THE ADDITIONS BY ALLOWING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE RAISED IN THIS REGARD. 11. AS REGARDS ADDITION OF 1,20,000 MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT, HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE MATERIAL MADE AVAILABLE TO THE TRIBUNAL, WE FIND BOTH THE AUTHORITIES HAVE HELD THAT THE LOANS WERE NOT VERIFIABLE. WE CANNOT AGREE WITH SUCH FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTEDLY FILED CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE LENDERS AND ALSO THE DETAILS OF DATE OF LOAN, NAME OF THE LENDERS, THEIR PAN AND AMOUNT, AS ABSTRACTED IN PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). THEREFORE, WITHOUT BRINGING ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN OUR CO NSIDERED VIEW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISBELIEVING THE CASH LOANS OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN SUCH VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ADDITION OF 1,20,000 MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. WE DIRECT DELETION OF THE SAID ADDITION. 12. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06, ANOTHER ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT NON - ACCEPTANCE OF THE INVESTMENT IN M/S.MAMATA FOR AN AMOUNT OF 40,000. GOING THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAV E INVESTED THE SAID AMOUNT OUT OF CASH LOANS OF 1,20,000 BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THE CASH LOANS TO BE NOT VERIFIABLE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT MADE ADDITION OF 40,000 SINCE HE MADE ADDITION OF 1,20,000 DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF UN SECURED LOANS. SINCE WE HAVE DELETED THE SAID ADDITION OF 1,20,000 FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH BY ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF IT(SS)A NOS.95,96,97,98,99,100, AND 101/CTK/2011 11 CASH LOANS, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE MET THE INVESTMENT OF 40,000 MADE OUT OF SUCH CASH LOANS IS ALSO DIRECTED TO BE ACCEPTED. 13. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DISPUTED THE ADDITION OF 1,50,000 TOWARDS INVESTMENT IN THE MAMATA AGRICULTURAL PROJECT. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON R ECORD. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT INCOME DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION TO MEET THE ABOVE INVESTMENT. FROM THE CASH AND BANK FLOW STATEMENT FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH IS AB STRACTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN PARAGRAPH 3 OF ORDER, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH HER IN ORDER TO MEET THE ABOVE INVESTMENT OF 1,50,000. WHEN THIS WAS POINTED OUT, THE LEARNED DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE SAME. THEREFOR E, WE ARE OF CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ADDITION OF 1,50,000 BEING INVESTMENT IN THE MAMATA AGRICULTURAL PROJECT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT DELETION OF THE SAID ADDITION BY ALLOWING THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AYS 2001 - 02, 2002 - 03, 2003 - 04, 2004 - 05 AND 2007 - 08 ARE ALLOWED AND THOSE FOR THE AYS 2005 - 06, 2006 - 07 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. S D/ - S D/ - (K.S.S.PRASAD RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER (K.K.GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 25.04.2012 H.K.PADHEE, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY. IT(SS)A NOS.95,96,97,98,99,100, AND 101/CTK/2011 12 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT: SMT. JANAKI MUDALI, PLOT NO.122, SAHID NAGAR, BHUBANESWAR 2. THE RESPONDENT: ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), BHUBANESWAR. 3. THE C IT, 4. THE CIT(A), 5. THE DR, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE (IN DUPLICATE) TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY.