Ita/19/2015 Of Shri. K.p.madhavan Nair v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Kasaragod

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2015/13TH JYAISHTA, 1937 ITA.No. 19 of 2015 () ---------------------- ORDER IN ITA 215/2013 to 218 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH,COCHIN DATED 14-08-2014 APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSE: ------------------------------------------------------------ SHRI. K.P.MADHAVAN NAIR KANATHUR, MULIYAR, KASARAGOD-671542. BY ADVS.SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DEPARTMENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, KASARAGOD BY SRI.P.K.R. MENON, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON03-06-2015, ALONG WITH ITA. 20/2015, 43/2015 & 44/2015, THE COURTON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ITA.No. 19 of 2015 APPENDIX APPELLANT'S ANNEXUERS: ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF the ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR the YEAR2003-04 DATED 09.11.2010. ANNEXURE B : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON APPELLATE ORDER OFTHE CIT(A) DATED 19.03.2013. ANNEXURE C: TRUE COPY OF the COMMON INCOME TAX APPELLATETRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 14.08.2014. ANNEXURE D: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SUBORDINATEJUDGE OF KASARAGOD DATED 05.12.2009. ANNEXURE E: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTACCOUNTS DATED 10.11.2014. ANENXURE F: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 19.11.2002. ANNEXURE G: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 19.11.2002. ANNEXURE H: TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE FILED BY THEAPPELLANT RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE smv ANTONY DOMINIC & SHAJI P. CHALY, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- I.T.A. Nos.19, 20, 43 & 44 of 2015-----------------------------------------------Dated this the 3[rd] day of June, 2015 JUDGMENT Antony Dominic,J. Parties and the issues arising in these appeals, relating toassessment years 2003-2004 to 2006-2007, are common.Therefore, these cases were heard together and we dispose of bythis common judgment. 2. In so far as the assessment for the years 2003-2004,2004-2005 and 2005-2006, additions made by the AssessingOfficer towards unexplained fixed deposits and investments inproperty which were confirmed by the appellate authority arethe common issues. In so far as the deposit is concerned, it isseen that substantial deposits were made by the assessee inbanks and which were sought to be explained by him bycontending that he was the Administrator of Sri Kanathur NalvarDaivasthanam, Kanathur, Kasaragod District. According to him,for the development of the Daivasthanam, amounts werecollected from the general public and the amounts found in deposits were such collected amounts. This was also sought tobe substantiated by relying on the receipt and payment accountprepared by a Chartered Accountant which was produced by theassessee for the first time before the Tribunal. However theauthorities including the Tribunal have concurrently rejected thecase of the assessee on the ground that the assessee could notproduce any documents substantiating the claims and in fact theTribunal has also entered a finding that the assertions made bythe assessee before the Tribunal were contrary to his own casebefore the lower authorities. Such being the case, we cannotfind fault with the Tribunal in having confirmed the findings ofthe lower authorities. 3. Similar was the case with fixed deposit of Rs.1,10,881/-and agricultural income of Rs.3,00,000/- which was treated asincome from other sources. 3. Similar was the case with fixed deposit of Rs.1,10,881/-and agricultural income of Rs.3,00,000/- which was treated asincome from other sources. 4. It is also seen that the Tribunal has found accepted thecase of the Assessing Officer regarding the investment inproperty at Rs.16,95,000/-. In so far as this investment isconcerned, the appellant contended that the property in questionwas purchased by him along with four others and that thereforethe entire investment cannot be added to his income. However,there is absolutely no explanation regarding his failure inproducing the documents before the Assessing Officer. That apart he also has not adduced any evidence at any stage ofproceedings. He also did not adduce any evidence regarding thecontributions that are allegedly received by him from the otherpersons who are stated to be the co-owners. Such being thecase, the Tribunal's order confirming this order also does notmerit any interference. However in so far as the assessment year2006-2007, the order which was confirmed by the Tribunal andwhich is challenged in ITA No.43 of 2015 is concerned, we findthat the assessee has been assessed on the basis that there is anun-disposed investment of Rs.15,14,200/-. We find fromAnnexure-D, objection filed by the assessee before the AssessingOfficer, he has stated thus: “As regards the investment in property, it issubmitted that we are not in position to understandhow you have arrived at a total investment amount ofRs.1514200. There is no investment in my individualcapacity to the tune of Rs.1514200. However theinvestment made during the year underconsideration is detailed in annexure I enclosed. I donot understand what are the document comprised offget the total investment of RS.1514200 as alleged.The details may be made available to me so as toexplain the same. The details of investments madeby my family members are detailed in annexure I andcopy of document refered are enclosed.” 5. Not only that the details which were allegedly in thepossession of the Assessing Officer and which is mentioned in the assessment order were not disclosed to the assessee, but alsothe Assessing Officer also has not disclosed any such details inthe assessment order. This contention has also not beenconsidered by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal. Insuch circumstances, we are unable to sustain the inclusion ofRs.15,14,200/- in the income of the assessee for the assessmentyear 2006-2007, allegedly towards investment made by him inthe property. Therefore, we set aside the finding of theAssessing Officer that the assessee has made investment in theproperty at Rs.15,14,200/- in the assessment year in questionand direct the Assessing Officer to re-consider the matter withnotice to the assessee. Documents that are relied on by theAssessing Officer on this issue shall be disclosed to the assesseeand he shall be given an opportunity to explain the matter aswell. Except to the above extent, the orders confirmed by theTribunal will stand confirmed. The appeals are disposed of. Sd/ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/-JUDGE SHAJI P. CHALY