A.Naresh Babu, Hyderabad v. ITO, Siddipet

ITA 449/HYD/2009 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 44922514 RSA 2009
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 449/HYD/2009
Duration Of Justice 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant A.Naresh Babu, Hyderabad
Respondent ITO, Siddipet
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 18-02-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 18-02-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 01-02-2010
Next Hearing Date 01-02-2010
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 06-04-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AKBER BASHA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 444 & 450/HYD/09 : ASST. YEARS 1996- 97 & 2002-03 DR. A. NARESH BABU GAJWEL(INDL.) IN COME-TAX OFFICER HYDERABAD. V/S WARD-1 SIDDIPET. ITA NOS. 445 TO 449/HYD/09 ASST. YEARS: 199 7-98 TO 2001-02 DR. A. NARESH BABU GAJWEL(HUF) INCO ME-TAX OFFICER HYDERABAD. V/S WARD-1 SIDDIPET. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANTS BY : SRI S. RAMA RAO RESPONDENT BY : SMT VASUNDHARA SINHA O R D E R PER BENCH THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE TWO IN THE STATUS OF INDIVID UAL AND FIVE IN THE STATUS OF HUF ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT (A)-III HYDERABAD DATED 19-1-2009 AND 02-02-200 9 IN THE STATUS OF INDIVIDUAL AND HUF RESPECTIVELY FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 199 6-97 TO 2002-03. SINCE COMMON AND IDENTICAL ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS THESE ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2 2. THE BACK GROUND OF THESE APPEALS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A MEDICAL PRACTITIONER AT GAJWEL. THE ORIGINAL RETURNS FILED FOR RESPECTIVE YEARS WERE PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. CONSEQUENT T O SURVEY OPERATION U/S 133A CONDUCTED ON 5-12-2002 AT THE ASSESSEE 'S PREMISES NOTICES U/S 148 WERE ISSUED IN COMPLIANCE OF WHICH REVISED RETURNS WERE FILED. THE ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED U/S 143(3) MA KING SEVERAL ADDITIONS AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEALS BEFORE T HE CIT(A) HYDERABAD. HOWEVER THESE APPEALS WERE WITHDRAWN AND THE ASSESSEE FILED PETITION U/S 264 BEFORE THE CIT HYDERABAD WHICH WERE DISPOSED OFF VIDE ORDER DATED 31-3-2006. LEARNED CIT DECIDED CERT AIN ISSUES WHILE OTHER ISSUES WERE SET ASIDE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH CERT AIN DIRECTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS AND FRESH ASSESSMENTS WERE MADE VIDE ORDER DATED 29-12-2006 AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED A PPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(A) HYDERABAD AND ALL THESE APPEALS WERE DISM ISSED VIDE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 24-3-2008 FOR THE REASON THAT THE SAME WERE NOT MAINTAINABLE. IN FURTHER APPEAL THE TRIBUNAL HYDERA BAD VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 5-9-2008 RESTORED ALL THE APPEALS TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (A) HOLDING THAT THE APPEALS WERE MAINTAINABLE. ON THIS DIRECTION THE CIT(A) PASSED ORDERS AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E US. ITA NO.444/HYD/09- ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 (INDL.): 3. GROUND NOS. 1 AND 4 RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE GENER AL IN NATURE AND THEY DO NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 4. THE EFFECTIVE ISSUE IN THE GROUND NO.2 IS WHETHER THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.2 02 655 RETURNED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN THE INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY REPRESENTS THE UNEXPLAINED MONEY OF THE ASSESSEE OR NOT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING 3 OFFICER ESTIMATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.1 71 000 RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS AGAINST RETURNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.2 02 655 AND THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.31 655 WAS ADDED TO THE UNEXPLAINED I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT IN HIS ORDER U/S 264 HAS CATEGORICALLY HEL D THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND BELONGS TO HUF AND HENCE THE ENTIRE A GRICULTURAL INCOME CAN BE CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF THE HUF ONLY F OR THE PURPOSE OF RATE. HENCE THE CIT IS WRONG IN TREATING THE SAID AG RICULTURAL INCOME AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAP ACITY. 5. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE NOT PRODU CED ANY EVIDENCE AT ANY STAGE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM THAT HI S HUF OR MOTHER GAVE THEIR SHARE TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE THE ORDER OF THE CIT IS TO BE CONFIRMED. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFT ER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE HELD THAT THE AGRI CULTURAL LAND TO THE EXTENT OF 1/4TH OF 42 ACRES 31 GUNTAS AND THE INCO ME THERE FROM SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF THE HUF ONLY AND CR EDIT OF 1/4TH SHARE BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE'S MOTHER CAN BE CLAIMED IN THE ASSESSEE'S HANDS ONLY IF THE ASSESSEE PRODUCES ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE MOTHER HAS IN FACT ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE TO USE HER SHARE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. EVEN AT THIS STAGE NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED TO SU BSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM THAT HIS HUF OR MOTHER GAVE THEIR SHARE TO TH E ASSESSEE BUT SIMPLY RELYING ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT U/S 264 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE THE CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE ENTIRE AGRICU LTURAL INCOME OF RS.2 02 655 RETURNED IN THE HANDS OF THE INDIVIDUAL ACTUALLY REPRESENTS TO THE UNEXPLAINED MONEY OF THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CONSIDER ING THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE FIND THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS 4 PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED IN HIS ACTION IN THIS REGARD AND TH ERE IS NO FLAW IN HIS ORDER AND ACCORDINGLY WE CONFIRM HIS ORDER AND DISMISS T HE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. 7. GROUND NO.3 RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REGARD T O CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE ACT. IT WAS CONTENDED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE INTEREST WAS CHARGED FROM THE 1ST APRIL OF THE ASSESSME NT YEAR TILL THE DATE OF REASSESSMENT AND THE SAME CAN BE CHARGED ONLY TILL THE DATE OF ASSESSMENT U/S 1431) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CIT (A ) HELD AS FOLLOWS: 'THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN THE COMPUTATION OF IN TEREST CHARGED U/S 234B. WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THIS ORDER H E SHOULD RECOMPUTE THE INTEREST IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER CONSID ERING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE.' IN VIEW OF ABOVE DIRECTION OF THE CIT (A) WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE SHOULD NOT ANY GRIEVANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSE E. HENCE THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. ITA NO.445/HYD/09- ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 (HUF): 8. GROUND NOS. 1 AND 4 RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE GENER AL IN NATURE AND THEY DO NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 9. GROUND NO.2 RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS.1 75 000 AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT RECEIVED FROM SRI ANIL KUMAR. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HELD THAT IN FACT SRI ANIL KUMAR WAS ONLY A STUDENT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND IT IS FURTHER NOTICED THAT IN THE ORIGINAL 5 CASH FLOW STATEMENT FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME OF SRI ANIL KUMAR NO LOAN WAS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE HUF. THE REVISED CASH FLOW STATEMENT OF SRI ANIL KUMAR FILED DURING THE AP PEAL PROCEEDINGS IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY ANY INDEPENDENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDE NCE AND THE OPENING BALANCES SHOWN THEREIN HAVE NO BASIS. IT WAS FU RTHER NOTICED BY THE CIT (A) THAT THE LOAN OF RS.3 13 045 SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM HUF ON BEHALF OF SRI ANIL KUMAR AND NO CASH WAS ACTUALLY PAID BY HUF TO SRI ANIL KUMAR WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN R EPAID BY HIM TO THE HUF AND THE SOURCES OF AMOUNTS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN RECE IVED FROM SRI ANIL KUMAR IN VARIOUS YEARS WAS NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THEREFORE HE UPHELD THE ADDITONS MAD E ON THIS ACCOUNT. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF RIVAL PARTIES AN D PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD IN THIS REGARD. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT OF SRI ANI L KUMAR SHOWED SUBSTANTIAL CASH BALANCE AVAILABLE AND HENCE ADDITI ON OF RS.1 75 000 AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT SRI ANIL K UMAR WAS ONLY A STUDENT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE REVISE D CASH FLOW STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE APPEAL PROCEED INGS IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY ANY INDEPENDENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE FIND THAT THE CIT (A) IS PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITI ONS MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT ON THE GROUND THAT SRI ANIL KUMAR HAS NO SOURCE OF INCOME AND THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUPPORT ED WITH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. ACCORDINGLY WE CONFIRM HIS ORDER. HENCE THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 6 11. GROUND NO.3 RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE ACT. IT WAS CONTENDED BEFORE T HE CIT (A) THAT THE INTEREST WAS CHARGED FROM THE 1ST APRIL OF THE ASSESSME NT YEAR TILL THE DATE OF REASSESSMENT AND THE SAME CAN BE CHARGED ONLY TILL THE DATE OF ASSESSMENT U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CIT (A ) HELD AS FOLLOWS: 'THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN THE COMPUTATION OF IN TEREST CHARGED U/S 234B. WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THIS ORDER H E SHOULD RECOMPUTE THE INTEREST IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER CONSID ERING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE.' IN VIEW OF ABOVE DIRECTION OF THE CIT (A) WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE SHOULD NOT ANY GRIEVANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSE E. HENCE THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. ITA NO.446/HYD/09- ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 ( HUF): 12. GROUND NOS. 1 AND 6 RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE GEN ERAL IN NATURE AND THEY DO NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 13. GROUND NO.2 RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REGARD CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.1 23 750 AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT FROM SRI ANIL KUMAR. ON SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE HAVE REJECTED THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IN PARA-10 OF THIS ORDER. FOLLOWING THE SAME RE ASONING GIVEN THEREIN WE REJECT THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. GROUND NO.3 IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF ENHA NCED STAMP DUTY OF RS.1 19 350/- REPRESENTS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDIT URE WITHOUT 7 ALLOWING SET OFF OF THE ADDITIONS MADE FOR VARIOUS YEA RS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE FIRST APPELLA TE AUTHORITY OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT WHILE PASSING A N ORDER U/S 264 THE CIT DIRECTED THAT WHEREVER INVESTMENT IS MADE THE AMOUNTS ADDED AS INCOME HAVE TO BE GIVEN CREDIT FOR WHICH WAS NOT PROV IDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 15. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF RIVAL PARTIES AN D PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE GONE THOR OUGH THE FACTS AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FIND THAT THE CIT(A) RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT ON TH E GROUND THAT THE REVISED CASH FLOW STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURIN G THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED WITH ANY INDEP ENDENT EVIDENCE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE DO NOT SEE ANY MER IT IN THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS REJECTED. 16. GROUND NOS.4 & 5 RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REGA RD TO CHARGING OF INTEREST U/SS 234B & 234A OF THE ACT RESPECTIVELY. IT WAS CONTENDED BEFORE THE CIT (A) THAT THE INTEREST WAS CHARGED FROM THE 1ST APRIL OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR TILL THE DATE OF REASSESSMENT AND THE SA ME CAN BE CHARGED ONLY TILL THE DATE OF ASSESSMENT U/S 143(1) OF TH E ACT. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HELD AS FOLLOWS: 'THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN THE COMPUTATION OF IN TEREST CHARGED U/S 234 A &B. WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THIS ORD ER HE SHOULD RECOMPUTE THE INTEREST IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER CONSID ERING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE.' 8 IN VIEW OF ABOVE DIRECTION OF THE CIT (A) WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE SHOULD NOT ANY GRIEVANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSE E. HENCE THESE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE REJECTED. ITA NO.447/HYD/09- ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 (HUF): 17. GROUND NOS. 1 AND 5 RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE GENE RAL IN NATURE AND THEY DO NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 18. THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REGARD THE ADDITION OF RS.40 000 AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT FROM SRI ANIL K UMAR. WE HAVE ALREADY DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE IN ITA NO.444/HYD/09 ABOV E AND BY FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING MENTIONED THEREIN WE UP HOLD THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND DISMISS THE GROUND T AKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ACCOUNT. 19. THE THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE GIFT OF RS.83 450 RECEIVED FROM SMT. BHOOLAKSHMI MOTHER OF DR. A. NARESH BABU. THE ASSESSEE'S MOTHER STATED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT SHE HAD GOLD JEWELLERY WHICH INCLUDED GOLD CHAIN BRACELETS ETC. WHICH SOLD IN TWO INSTALLMENTS ONCE IN THE YEAR 1999-200 0 AND OTHER IN THE ASST. YEAR 2001-02 AND IT WAS SOLD FOR CONSIDERATIO N OF RS.83 450 AND THIS AMOUNT WAS GIFTED TO HER SECOND SON DR. A. NARE SH BABU . THE CIT (A) BY CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISBELIEVED THE GIFT OF RS.83 450 AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT OF SMT. BHOOLAKSHMI MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE WH ICH WAS PLACED IN PAGE 79 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 9 20. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF RIVAL PARTIES AN D PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THER E IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER PRODUCED IN RESPECT OF SALE OF JEWELLERY ALLE GED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE DONOR. THE OCCASION AND REASON OF THE GIFT IS ALSO MENTIONED IN THE REQUISITION. THE AFORESAID GIFTS WE RE MADE IN CASH AND THE DONOR IS ASSESSED TO TAX. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONOR AS WELL AS THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT TRANSACTION THE ADDITIONS MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE FIRST APPELL ATE AUTHORITY IS CORRECT AND HENCE NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. THEREFO RE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE CONFIRMED ON THIS ISSUE AND T HE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 21. FOURTH GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO CHARGIN G OF INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE ACT. IT WAS CONTENDED BEFORE THE CIT (A) THAT THE INTEREST WAS CHARGED FROM THE 1ST APRIL OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR TILL THE DATE OF REASSESSMENT AND THE SAME CAN BE CHARGED ONLY TILL THE DAT E OF ASSESSMENT U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HELD AS FOLLOWS: 'THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN THE COMPUTATION OF IN TEREST CHARGED U/S 234B. WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THIS ORDER H E SHOULD RECOMPUTE THE INTEREST IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER CONSID ERING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE.' IN VIEW OF ABOVE DIRECTION OF THE CIT (A) WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE SHOULD NOT ANY GRIEVANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSE E. HENCE THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. ITA NO.448/HYD/09- ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 (HUF): 10 22. GROUND NOS. 1 AND 4 RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE GENE RAL IN NATURE AND THEY DO NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 23. GROUND NO.2 IS WITH REGARD DISALLOWANCE OF ADDITIO N OF RS.1 11 000 ON ACCOUNT OF CHITS AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM SRI KISTA REDDY. IT WAS EXPLAINED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE AFORE SAID AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR AS CHIT BID FROM M/S KISTAREDDY CHITS. HOWEVER SINCE THE RECEIPTS WERE NOT CORROBORATED BY THE IMPOUNDE D MATAERIAL THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE CREDITS AS UNEXPLAINED. DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RE ITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FURTHER SU BMITTED THAT THE ADDITION HAD A DOUBLE EFFECT AS THE SAME AMOU NT WAS AGAIN ADDED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DID NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND HE HELD THAT IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE IMPOUNDED DIARY/DOCUMENTS THAT WHENEVER THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE CHIT AMOUNT IT IS WRITTEN 'LIFTED' AND THE AMOUNT AND DATE WAS ALSO MENTIONED AGAINST THE NARRATION. I T WAS FOUND BY THE CIT (A) THAT THERE IS NO SUCH MENTION/NARRATION IN TH E IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE AFORESAID AMOUNT F ROM M/S KISTAREDDY CHITS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. C ASH RECEIPTS OF RS.1 11 000 DURING THE YEAR WERE NOT SATISFACTORILY E XPLAINED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THEREFORE HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON TH IS ACCOUNT. 24. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE W E FIND THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION AS CHIT BID FROM M/S KISTAREDDY CHITS. THE ASSESSING 11 OFFICER MADE ADDITION AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THESE CHITS WERE LIFTED AT THE END SINCE THERE WAS NO INDICATION IN THE IMPOUNDED MATERIAL ABOUT THE DATE OF LIFTING OF THE CHITS. SINCE THERE IS NO NARRATION IN THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE IN FACT RECEIVED THE AFORESA ID AMOUNT FROM M/S KISTAREDDY CHITS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION. THE CIT (A) IS RIGHT IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 11 000 /- ON THIS ACCOUNT AND NO MODIFICATION IS REQUIRED. HENCE WE CONFIRM HIS ORDER AND DISMISS THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 25. THE THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO CHAR GING OF INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE ACT. IT WAS CONTENDED BEFORE THE CIT(A ) THAT THE INTEREST WAS CHARGED FROM THE 1ST APRIL OF THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR TILL THE DATE OF REASSESSMENT AND THE SAME CAN BE CHARGED ONLY TILL THE DATE OF ASSESSMENT U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HELD AS FOLLOWS: 'THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN THE COMPUTATION OF IN TEREST CHARGED U/S 234B. WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THIS ORDER H E SHOULD RECOMPUTE THE INTEREST IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER CONSID ERING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE.' IN VIEW OF ABOVE DIRECTION OF THE CIT (A) WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE SHOULD NOT ANY GRIEVANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSE E. HENCE THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. ITA NO.449/HYD/09- ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 (HUF): 26. GROUND NOS. 1 AND 5 RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE GENE RAL IN NATURE AND THEY DO NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 12 27. SECOND GROUND IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO T HE ADDITION OF RS.2 22 300 ON ACCOUNT OF CHIT SUBSCRIPTION. WE FIND TH AT THE CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE A FORESAID AMOUNT WAS NOT FOUND MENTIONED IN THE IMPOUNDED DIARY TO SHO W THAT THE SAME WAS RECEIVED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. THE CONTENTION O F THE LEARNED COUNSEL WAS NOT CORROBORATED BY ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. HENCE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE UPHELD. 28. THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOW ANCE OF GIFT OF RS.91 000 RECEIVED FROM SMT. BHOOLAKSHMI MOTHER OF T HE ASSESSEE. SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DEALT WITH BY US IN THIS ORDER IN PAR AS 19 AND 20 OF THIS ORDER AND HELD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY CONFIRMING T HE ACTION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE TH IS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY REJECTED. 29. THE LAST GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO CHARGI NG OF INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE ACT. THIS ISSUE WAS ALSO DECIDED BY US IN PARA -25 OF THIS ORDER AND HELD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING GIVEN THERE UNDER WE DISMISS THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS COUNT. ITA NO.450/HYD/09- ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 (INDL.): 30. GROUND NOS. 1 AND 5 RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE GENE RAL IN NATURE AND THEY DO NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 31. GROUND NOS.2 AND 3 IN THIS APPEAL ARE WITH REGARD ADDITIONS OF RS.1 18 343 AND RS.25 840 ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE BY SRI ANIL KUMAR IN PURCHASE OF PLOT AT PREGNAPUR AND CHITS SUBSCRI PTION 13 RESPECTIVELY. IN SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE W E HAVE DISMISSED THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIER YEAR I.E. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 HOLDING THAT SRI ANIL KUMAR HAS NO IND EPENDENT SOURCES FOR THE INVESTMENT. FOLLOWING THE SAME WE UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DISMISS THESE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 32. FOURTH AND LAST GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD T O CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE ACT. THIS ISSUE WAS ALSO DECIDED BY US IN PARA- 25 OF THIS ORDER AND HELD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. FOLLOWI NG THE SAME REASONING GIVEN THERE UNDER WE DISMISS THE GROUND TAK EN BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS COUNT. 34. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 18-2-2010. SD/- SD/- (N.R.S. GANESAN) (AKBER BASHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT/- 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI S. RAMA RAO ADVOCATE FLAT NO.103 INDIRADE VI NILAYAM STREET NO.7 HIMAYATNAGAR HYDERABAD. 2. ITO WARD-1 SIDDIPET. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX HYDERABAD. 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)-III HYDERABAD. 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ITAT HYDERABAD. JMR* 14