Shri K.Rajendran, CHENNAI v. ITO, Coimbatore

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH C : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] I.T.A.NO.1148/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI K. RAJENDRAN 2/5 OLD NO.227D VIGNESH SATHYA NAGAR VELLATHOTTAM GANAPATHY COIMBATORE 641 008 VS THE ITO SALARY WARD I(5) COIMBATORE [PAN ADGPR4528K] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B. SRINIVAS O R D E R PER HARI OM MARATHA JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2006-07 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-II CO IMBATORE DATED 1.2.2010. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE AN INDIVIDUAL IS THE EMPLOYEE OF M/S L.G BALAKRISHNAN & BROS LTD. HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 32 106/-. HE ALSO SHOWED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ` 1.5 LAKHS IN THIS YEAR. WHEN THE ITA 1148/10 :- 2 -: ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AN ADDITION OF ` 60 000/- WAS MADE BY DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THA T EXTENT AND ANOTHER ADDITION OF ` 4 39 807/- WAS ALSO MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. THE ASSESSEE FELT AGGRIEVED AND PREFER RED FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO IN HIS WISDOM HAS ALSO C ONFIRMED BOTH THE ADDITIONS. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS FURTHER AGGRIEVED AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)LI COIMBATORE DATED 1.2.2010 IN I.T.A.NO.322C/08-09 FOR THE ABOVE MENTIONED ASSESSMENT YEAR IS CONTRARY TO LAW FACTS AND IN T HE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN REJECTING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE HIM ON THE GROUND OF DISPUTED ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 'AGREED BASIS' WITHOUT ASSIGNING PROPER REASONS AND JUSTIFICATION. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THER E WAS NO LEGAL SANCTITY FOR AGREEING TO ADDITIONS INASMUCH AS THE ADDITIONS PROPOSED AND MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE ON ESTIMATED BASIS. 4. THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE SOURCE FOR THE INVESTMENT WAS PROPERLY EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS IN THE FIRS T APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND NON CONSIDERATION OF THE EXPLANATION IN THE REJECTION OF THE SOURCE CLAIMED FOR THE SAID INVESTMENT PURELY ON SURMISE AND SUSPICION WAS WRONG INCORRECT UNJUSTIFIED ERRONEOUS AND NO T SUSTAINABLE BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. ITA 1148/10 :- 3 -: 5. THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT HAVING CONFIRMED IN THE REMAND REPORT DATED 6.1.2010 ON THE AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTARY PROOF I N RESPECT OF CREDITS NON CONSIDERATION OF THE APPELLANT'S REPLY DATED 31.1.2010 WAS WRONG AND INCORRECT IN THAT REGARD IN THE PASSING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 6. THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON IN PARA 4.3.7 WERE CITED AND RELIED UPON OUT OF CONTEXT AND NOT APPLICABLE TO TH E FACTS OF THE CASE INASMUCH AS THERE WOULD NOT BE AN Y CONCESSION FOR FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT/MAKING AN ADDITION WHICH COULD NOT BE OTHERWISE LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE. 7. THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT IN S O FAR AS THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME THERE WAS N O EFFECTIVE FINDING TO REJECT THE SAID CLAIM AND HENC E THE FINDINGS RECORDED IN THIS REGARD IN PARA 5 OF T HE IMPUGNED ORDER WERE WRONG INCORRECT UNJUSTIFIED ERRONEOUS AND NOT SUSTAINABLE BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 8. THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT HAVING ESTABLISHED THE SOURCE FOR THE INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY MAINLY OUT OF 'SAVINGS ' THE SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS WRONG INCORRECT UNJUSTIFIED ERRONEOUS AND NOT SUSTAINABLE BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 9. THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE FACTS MENTIONED IN PARA 4.3.1 AND 4.3.2 WERE NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN THE SUSTENANCE OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 10. THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE WAS NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY GIVEN BEFORE PASSIN G THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND ANY ORDER PASSED IN VIOLATIO N OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS NULLITY IN LAW. ITA 1148/10 :- 4 -: 11. THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE DECISION OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT CITED BEFORE HIM WAS NOT CONSIDERED AND CONVENIENTLY OVERLOOKED IN THE PROCESS OF SUSTAINING THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. 12. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSMENT OF REPORTED AGRICULTURAL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES PARTIALLY WAS WRONG INCORRECT UNJUSTIFIED ERRONEOUS AND NOT SUSTAINAB LE BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 13. THE CLT(APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE REJECTION OF THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WOULD NOT AUTOMATICALLY LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION FOR MAKING AN ASSESSMENT UNDER THE HEAD 'OTHER SOURCES' AND IN ANY EVENT THE EVIDENCE PLACED ON RECORD WOULD FORTI FY THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME ON THE FACTS AND I N THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 14. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO FILE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS/ARGUMENTS AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. IN SO FAR THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME CLAIMED BY THE AS SESSEE AT 1 50 000 IS CONCERNED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT HE CARRIED AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS IN A COCONUT GROVE TAKEN ON LEASE AND THE LAND MEASURED 7 ACRES WHICH BELONG TO ONE SHRI J.V.JAG ANNATHAN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WANTED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE EACH CLAIM WITH THE HELP OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE LIKE SALES AND PURCHAS ES RECEIPTS ETC. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ADMITTEDLY PROVE THE SAME AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS KIND ENOUGH TO ALLOW 60% OF THE CLAIM. THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THIS FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THAT OF THE LD. CIT(A). ITA 1148/10 :- 5 -: 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED ` 10 39 807/- AS HIS SOURCE FROM PAST SAVINGS. DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD PU RCHASED A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN PEELAMEDU COIMBATORE. A F UND FLOW STATEMENT WAS FILED EXPLAINING THE SOURCES USED FOR THIS PURC HASE WHICH INCLUDED BANK LOANS CERTAIN HAND LOANS BESIDES AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND PAST SAVINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESS EE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM WITH THE HELP OF EVIDENCE LIKE BANK ACCOU NT ETC. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE EXCESS SAVINGS WERE KEPT I N CASH AT TIMES AND ROTATED AMONG FRIENDS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS N OTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SENIOR EXECUTIVE IN M/S L.G BALAKRISH NAN & BROS LTD AND HIS WIFE SMT CHITRA IS ALSO EMPLOYED IN THE SAME CO NCERN FOR THE PAST TEN YEARS. AFTER CONSIDERING PROBABILITIES OF LIFE INCLUDING HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AND INVESTMENTS MADE U/S 80C OF THE ACT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT ONLY ` 6 LAKHS CAN BE TREATED AS ASSESSEES SAVINGS INCLUDING THAT OF HIS WIFE AND THEREFORE THE DIFFE RENCE OF ` 4 39 807/- WAS ADDED BEING UNEXPLAINED INCOME. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER GIVING DETAILED DISCUSSION IN THIS REGARD HAS CONFIRMED T HIS ADDITION. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RECORD S AVAILABLE BEFORE US WE HAVE FOUND THAT THE FOLLOWING EXPLANA TION WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF TOTAL INVEST MENT OF ` 49 LAKHS ITA 1148/10 :- 6 -: MADE IN THE MONTH OF MANY 2005 FOR PURCHASING THE H OUSE WHICH READ AS UNDER: THE APPELLANT AND HIS WIFE SMT. R. CHITRA HAD PURC HASED AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY VIDE SALE DEED DATED 25 T1L MAY 2005 . FOR A CONSIDERATION OF ` 49.00 LAKHS FROM MRS. P.JAGADEESWARI. THE SAID AMOUNT OF ` 49 LAKHS WAS PAID BY CHEQUES DRAWN ON THE BANK ACCOUNTS WITH SYNDICATE BANK GANAPATHY BRANCH COI MBATORE AND LAKSHMI VILAS BANK AS UNDER: SYNDICATE BANK ` ` 01.04.2005/06.04.2005 5 00 000 11.04.2005/02.05.2005 3 00 000 8 00 000 LAKSHMI VILAS BANK 24.5.2005/2.6.2005 11 20 000 AND CHEQUE ISSUED BY CANFIN HOMES LTD 29 80 000 49 00 000 THE B A L ANCE AS O N 31 . 03.2 00 5 IN T H E S A V I NG S BANK A C C OUNT WITH SYNDICATE BA NK W AS ` 8 2 4 3 89 /- A ND THE BALANCE A T LAK S HMI VI L AS BANK AS ON 30 . 0 5 . 2 0 05 WAS ` 1 1 26 53 1 / . ' 6. THE FUND FLOW STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER: FUND FLOW STATEMENT ` ` SOURCES ACCUMULATED SALARY INCOME OF MR. RAJENDRAN AND MRS. R.CHITRA FOR THE PAST 25 YEARS 1039807.00 SALARY INCOME FOR THE YEAR 2005-06 330193.00 AGRL. INCOME FOR THE YEAR 2005-06 150000.00 LOAN FROM CANFIN HOMES 2980000.00 ICICI HOME FINANCE 960000.00 V.S. CHANDRASEKARAN 2500000.00 S.SARADAMANI 150000.00 4340000.00 5860000.00 APPLICATION PURCHASE OF PROPERTY 4900000.00 ITA 1148/10 :- 7 -: STAMP DUTY & REGISTRATION 441180.00 5341180.00 PERSONAL DRAWINGS & REPAYMENT OF LOAN LIC PAYMENTS 477365.00 CASH AT BANK 34735.00 CASH ON HAND 6720.00 5860000.00 MRS.CHITRA WORKED WITH ELGI TYRE & TREAD LTD. CBE - DURING THE PERIOD JULY 1987 TO SEPTEMBER 1996 AS JUNIOR OFFICER(ACCOU NTS).) IN THE LETTER DATED 29.11.2007 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSEE CLAIMED A SUM OF ` 9.60 LAKHS OUT OF SAV INGS SINCE 1977. I PURCHASED PROPERTY AT SF NO.231 SOWRIPALAYAM VIL LAGE PEELAMEDU COIMBATORE ON 25.5.2005 FOR ` 49.00 LAKHS THE DETAILS OF SOURCES OF PURCHASE ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. LOAN FROM CANFIN HOMES LTD 29.80 LAKHS 2. LOAN FROM ICICI HOME FINANCE ` 9.60 LAKHS 3. OUT OF MY SAVINGS SINCE 1997 ` 9.60 LAKHS TOTAL ` 49.00 LAKHS 7. THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT IN FACT THE ASSESS EE HIMSELF HAS AGREED FOR THE IMPUGNED ADDITION AND THIS FACT IS N OTED ON THE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 29.12.2008. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS A LSO PERUSED THE ENTIRE RECORD AND HAS FOUND THAT THE ORDER SHEET EN TRY STATED ABOVE IS AS UNDER: SHRI K. RAJENDRAN APPEARED WITH SHRI J . RENGANATHAN. C A S E DISCU S SED . ON THE PAST SAVINGS CLAIM BY THE ASSESSEE NO FRESH MATERIALS WERE FURNISHED. IT IS SEEN THAT BOTH MR . & MRS. RAJENDRAN WERE ON EMPLOYMENT AND ALSO HIS JOB AS A SR. EXECUTIVE DRAW CONSIDERABLE SALA R Y TO HIM . HENCE THERE IS S C OPE FOR SAVINGS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE . HOWEVER SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ARRANGE FOR ANY SOLID EVIDENC E I N HIS S UPPORT IT IS PROPOSED TO CONSIDER ` 439 807/ - AS INVESTMENTS O UT OF UNEXPLAINED MONEYS MADE BY HIM AFTER CONSIDERING ` 6 00 000 /- A S PROBABLE SAVINGS HELD BY HIM AND HIS WIFE . THE ASSE S SEE AGREED FOR T HE PROPOSAL . ITA 1148/10 :- 8 -: WITH REGARD TO THE AGRICULTURAL LEASE INCOME CLAIME D BY THE ASSESS E E IT WAS STATED THAT NO BOOKS WERE MAINTAINED FOR TAX OPERATIONS . T H E ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE FULL SET OF EXPENDITURE OR RECEIPT CLAIM FROM THESE OPERATIONS. AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FULLY SUBSTANTIATE HIS C LA I M IT IS PROPOSED TO TREAT 40% OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME C LAIMED BY H I M A S INCOME FROM 'OTHER SOURCES' . THE ASSESSEE AGREED FOR TH IS DISALLOWANCE .' ASSE SIGNED IN THE ORDER SHEET WITH THE FOLLOWING R EMARKS IN HIS OWN HANDWRITING: TO BUY PEACE WITH THE DEPARTMENT I AGREE FOR THE ABOVE ADDITIONS. ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE ALSO SIGNED IN THE ORDER SHEET. 8. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE FILED FURTHER D ETAILS INCLUDING THE FUND FLOW STATEMENT VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 14.9. 2009 WHICH IS AS UNDER: THERE IS A MISTAKE IN THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE TH AT 'A. 0 HAD GIVEN CREDIT ONLY FOR RS.4 39 807/- OUT OF ` 10 39 807/- CLAIMED'. ON THE CO NTR A RY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD GIVEN C R E DIT F O R ` 6 00 000/- AND H ELD ` 4 39 807/ - AS UNEXPL A IN E D INVESTMENT . 4 . 3 . 2 N EC ES SA RY BREAK - UP R EGA R D I NG SOURCE FOR ` 1 0 . 3 9 L A KH S WAS G IV E N . ' O PENIN G CASH ON HAND AS ON 01 . 0 4 . 2 00 5 11 0 6 13 . 00 CAS H A T BANK AS ON 01 . 04 . 2005 824 388 . 00 9 3 5 001 . 00 LESS : LOA NS F ROM RELATIVES 400 00 0 . 00 5 3 5 001 . 00 ADD : 05 . 0 5 . 2 00 5 PROCEEDS OF F IXED DEPOSIT WITH PRICOL LTD . MADE BY R . CHITHRA ON 3 . 5 . 2002 - MATURED O N 2 . 5.2005 100 000 . 00 0 9 . 05 . 2 00 5 PROCEEDS OF SALE O F EQUITY SHARE S HELD BY R . CHITHRA AS PER C ONTRACT- CUM - B I LL DATED APRIL 2 9 2005 OF I L &F S INVESTM E NT R E C EIV E D BY C H E Q UE DATED 3 . 5.2 00 5 C RE DI T E D BY BANK ON 9 . 5 . 2005 . 179 3 4 4.00 ITA 1148/10 :- 9 -: 09 . 0 5 . 2 00 6 PROCEED S OF SALE O F E Q UIT . Y SHAR E S H E LD BY R . CHITHRA A S PER C ONTRACT BILL DATED MAY 3 2005 OF IL&FS INVESTMENT RECEIVED BY CHEQUE DATED 5 . 5 . 2005 CREDITED BY BANK ON 10 . 5 . 2005 6 5 8 5 4 . 50 0 9 . 0 5. 2007 PROCEEDS OF SALE OF EQUITY SHARES HELD BY R . CHITHRA AS P E R CONTRA C T BILL DATED M A Y 4 2005 OF I L& FS INVESTMENT R ECEIVED BY CHEQ UE DAT E D 6 .5 .200 5 C R EDI T ED BY B A NK 11 . 5 . 2 00 5 159 608 . 11 TOT A L 1 03 9 80 7 . 6 1 ( RUPEES TEN LAKHS THIRTY NINE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND SEVEN AND PAISE SIXTY ONE ONLY)' 9. THESE SUBMISSIONS WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOR HIS VERIFICATION AND VIDE LETTER DATED 6.1.2010 REMAND REPORT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNDER: 'IN CONNECTION WITH REMAND PROCEEDINGS OF THE ABOVE PERSON THE CASE WAS POSTED FOR HEARING ON 05.11.2009 REQUESTIN G THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF INVESTMENTS MADE FOR THE FOLLOWING BANK ENTRIES OF CASH DEPOSITS: 16.3.2005 16.3.2006 ` 50 574 ` 50 435. 23.03.2005 ` 1 25 000 24.03.2005 ` 2 90 000 28.03.2005 ` 3 00 000 AND THE DATES ON WHICH EQUITY SHARES WERE PURCHASED AND SOURCES FOR INVESTMENTS. BY THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 30.10. 2009 AND 23.11.2009 OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT. THE ASSESSEE CHOSE NOT TO APPEAR IN PER SON BUT SIMPLY HANDED OVER THE PAPERS EXPLAINING THE TRANSACTION T HROUGH HIS OFFICE ASSISTANT. THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE W AS VERY MUCH AVAILABLE FROM THE COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT FURNISHED D URING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE CHOOSE NEITHE R TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF FUNDS AT THE TIME OF SCRUTINY ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS NOR AT THE TIME OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS. HENCE THE AS SESSING OFFICER'S ITA 1148/10 :- 10 - : STAND TO DISALLOW ` 4 39 807/- AS INVESTMENTS MADE BY HIM OUT OF UNEXPLAINED MONEY IS HEREBY CONFIRMED ONCE AGAIN. 4.3.5 THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED ` 10 39 807/- AS HIS PAST SAVINGS OUT OF THE CREDIT ENTRIES ON: 05.05.2005 ` 1 00 000 09.05.2005 ` 1 79 344 10.05.2005 ` 65 854 11.05.2005 ` 1 59 608 HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AS PAST SAVINGS. HENCE OUT OF THE SAID PAST SAVINGS OF THE ASSESSEE OF ` 10 39 807/- ONLY AN AMOUNT OF ` 504806 GETS EXPLAINED AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT REMAINS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT OF T HE ASSESSEE U/S.68 OF THE IT ACT 1961. 10. THIS REPORT WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE ASSESSEE ALSO. WE HAVE FOUND IT FOR A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AGREED FO R THIS ADDITION AND ONCE THE ASSESSEE AGREED AND COULD NOT PROVE ANY MA LAFIDE ON THE PART OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES SUCH AN ADMISSION CANNOT BE RETRACTED IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTION AL HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF RAMANLAL KAMDAR VS CIT 108 ITR 73 AND OTHER LIKE DECISIONS ON THE ISSUE. IT IS ALSO FOUN D THAT THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR THE DETAILS FROM RESPECTIVE FORM 16 FRO M ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 UPTO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND FOUND THAT BALANCE SHOWN IS NEALY ` 3 50 000 AND ODD AS AGAINST THE ASSESSEES CLAIM T HAT PAST SAVINGS WERE ` 10 39 807/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR THE BASIC DETAILS INCLUDING BANK ACCOUNT COPIES OF AGRICULTUR AL INCOME PROOF OF 80C PREMIUM RECEIPTS FUND FLOW STATEMENTS AS EARLY AS ON 21.10.2008. THESE DETAILS WERE NOT FILED BY THE AS SESSEE. IN OUR ITA 1148/10 :- 11 - : CONSIDERED OPINION THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE ONUS PRIMARILY LYING ON HIM TO PROVE HIS CLAIM. HE FAILED EVEN I N REMAND PROCEEDINGS TO FILE THE REQUISITE DETAILS. THEREFORE WE DO NO T FIND ANY MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD.AR AND THE GROUNDS TAKEN BEFORE US. 11. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STA NDS DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4.2.11 SD/- SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( HARI OM MARATHA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 4 TH FEBRUARY 2011 RD COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR