P.Kunhiraman Nair,, Kannur v. DCIT, Trichur

ITA 151/COCH/2011 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2011

Appeal Details

RSA Number 15121914 RSA 2011
Bench Cochin
Appeal Number ITA 151/COCH/2011
Duration Of Justice 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant P.Kunhiraman Nair,, Kannur
Respondent DCIT, Trichur
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 29-07-2011
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 25-02-2011
Judgment Text
I.T.A. NO. 151/COCH/2011 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL COCHIN BEN CH COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI N.VIJAYAKUMARAN JM AND SANJAY AR ORA AM I.T.A. NO. 151/COCH/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 SHRI P. KUNHIRAMAN NAIR RAMANILAYAM TRICHAMBARAM THALIPARAMBA KANNUR. [PAN:AABPN 7035R] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 CALICUT. (ASSESSEE-APPELLANT) (REVENUE -RESPONDEN T) ASSESSEE BY SHRI T.M.SREEDHARAN ADV.-AR REVENUE BY SHRI S.R.SENAPATI SR. DR O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDE R BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I KOCHI (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 03.11.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2005-06 CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 1 43(3) R/W S. 153C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 ('THE ACT' HEREINAFTER) DATED 30.11.2009. 2. THE APPEAL RAISES TWO ISSUES PER SEVEN GROUNDS WHICH WE SHALL TAKE UP IN SERIATIM. GROUND NOS. 3 TO 5; GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 BE ING GENERAL IN NATURE WARRANTING NO ADJUDICATION ARE IN RESPECT OF CONFIRMATION OF THE ADDITION IN THE SUM OF ` 5 LAKHS TO THE ASSESSEES RETURNED BUSINESS/PROFESSIONAL INCOME OF ` 2.40 LAKHS. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT A SEARCH AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE AS SESSEE ON 14.6.2007 REVEALED DEPOSIT IN THREE BANK ACCOUNTS WITH ALLAHABAD BANK BANDRA BRA NCH MUMBAI WHICH WERE SEIZED. A TOTAL OF ` 8 LAKHS STOOD DEPOSITED THEREIN IN CASH ON 16.11. 2004 . WHILE THE TWO BANK ACCOUNTS IN WHICH ` 3 LAKHS AND ` 2 LAKHS I.E. A TOTAL OF ` 5 LAKHS STOOD DEPOSITED WERE IN THE JOINT NAMES OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE THE T HIRD BEARING A DEPOSIT OF ` 3 LAKHS WAS I.T.A. NO. 151/COCH/2011 2 IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEES DAUGHTER PRAMILA GOP I AND HER HUSBAND SHRI E.K.GOPI. THE ASSESSEE ON BEING EXAMINED ON OATH U/S. 131 ON 25.7.2007 IN RESPECT OF THREE CASH TRANSACTIONS (DEPOSITS) EXPLAINED THAT THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED WAS OUT OF THE RECEIPT FROM VARIOUS COMPANIES/FIRMS HE WORKED FOR AFTER HIS RET IREMENT FROM M/S. VOLTAS LTD. IN 1998. THAT THE REMUNERATION WAS IN CASH AND HAD NOT BEEN DISCLOSED FOR TAX PURPOSES. THE SAME WAS IN RESPECT OF THE CONSULTANCY WORK REN DERED DURING THE PERIOD 2000-2002; HOWEVER AS THE FIRMS WERE NOT IN A POSITION TO PAY REGULARLY HE GOT THE AMOUNT/S ONLY IN NOVEMBER 2004. SOME PORTION OF THE SAME MAY BE OU T OF THE MATURITY PROCEEDS OF FIXED DEPOSITS FOR WHICH HE WOULD HAVE TO VERIFY HIS REC ORDS HE AGREED TO PAY TAX ON THE UNDISCLOSED AMOUNT (IN ANSWER TO QUESTION NO. 2). HOWEVER AS THE ASSESSEE OFFERED TO TAX ONLY ` 3 LAKHS DEPOSITED IN ONE JOINT ACCOUNT WITH HIS WIF E THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) BROUGHT THE BALANCE ` 5 LAKHS TO TAX. THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION QUA THE DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF HIS DAUGHTER AND SON-IN-LAW AS REPRESENTING HER PROPERTY WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY HIM IN VIEW OF THE ADMITTED FACTUAL POS ITION DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH TO NO EFFECTIVE REBUTTAL WHILE THERE WAS NO EXPLANATI ON QUA THE SECOND JOINT BANK ACCOUNT WITH WIFE. THE SAME STOOD CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IN APPEAL. THE DEPOSIT OF ` 2 LAKHS IN THE SECOND JOINT ACCOUNT WITH WIFE SMT. JAYA NA IR COULD NOT BE EXCLUDED AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT COME OUT WITH ANY OSTENSIBLE SOURC E OF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF HIS WIFE. AS REGARDS THE BANK ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF HIS DAUG HTER AND SON-IN-LAW WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS AN INDEPENDENT TRANSACTION SO THAT THE AMOUNT BELONGED TO HIS DAUGHTER COULD ALSO NOT BE ACCEPTED BEING UNSUPPORTED BY ANY EVID ENCE. THE AMOUNTS WERE DEPOSITED SIMULTANEOUSLY IN ALL THE THREE ACCOUNTS AND THE B ANK PAY-IN-SLIPS FOUND FROM THE ASSESSEES RESIDENCE. THERE WAS NO AMBIGUITY IN TH E ASSESSEES STATEMENT DULY REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ACCEPTING THE O WNERSHIP OF THE THREE AMOUNTS TOTALLING TO ` 8 LAKHS WHICH WERE EXPLAINED AS OUT OF HIS INCOME. IN FACT THE CONTENTION WITH REGARD TO IT BEING THE DAUGHTERS INCOME/PROPE RTY IS NOT VALID IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONFIRMATION FROM HER WHICH RATHER WOULD REQUIRE B EING SUPPORTED WITH SOME EVIDENCE AS BY WAY OF A CORRESPONDING WITHDRAWAL FROM HER AC COUNTED SOURCE. EVEN NO CASH FLOW I.T.A. NO. 151/COCH/2011 3 STATEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE DAUGHTER WAS PLACED ON RECORD. AGGRIEVED BY THE CONFIRMATION THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. 3.1 OUR FIRST OBSERVATION IN THE MATTER IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RETRACTED HIS UNAMBIGUOUS STATEMENT/DEPOSITION DATED 25.7.2007. T HE SAME FURNISHED VOLUNTARILY EXPLAINS THE ENTIRE AMOUNT DEPOSITED SIMULTANEOUSLY I.E. IN ALL THE THREE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNTS WITH THE SAME BANK IN THE NAME OF HIMSELF AND HIS IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS IN CASH AND THE PASS BOOKS AND PAY-IN-SLIPS IN RES PECT OF WHICH WERE FOUND FROM HIS RESIDENCE DURING SEARCH AS OUT OF HIS CONSULTANCY INCOME RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS COMPANIES/FIRMS FOR WHICH HE WORKED AFTER HIS RETIR EMENT AND ONLY IN NOVEMBER 2004. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES; THE STATEMENT BEING CORROB ORATED BY AND IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCES IT WAS INCUMBENT ON THE A SSESSEE TO SHOW AS TO WHAT INFIRMITY OR MISTAKEN BELIEF OF FACT/S ATTENDED HIS DISCLOSUR E ON BEING QUESTIONED IN RESPECT OF THE SAME LISTING THE THREE DEPOSITS (ALONG WITH THEIR PARTICULARS) SEQUENTIALLY IN THE QUESTION FRAMED I.E. ON SUBSEQUENTLY CONTENDING IT TO BE NOT A TRU E STATEMENT OF FACT PER HIS RETURN OF INCOME FILED ONLY ON 05/6/2009 I.E. AFTER 23 M ONTHS . THE FACT THAT THE DEPOSITION IS NOT U/S. 132(4) WHICH STANDS SPECIFICALLY MANDATED BY LAW AS AN ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE WHICH COULD BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BUT U/S. 131 A FTER SEARCH AS WAS SOUGHT TO BE HIGHLIGHTED BEFORE US BY THE LD. AR WOULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE TO THE EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE ADMISSION. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER FAILED TO S UPPORT HIS CHANGED STAND I.E. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN ANY MANNER. FIRSTLY EVE N AS CONCEDED TO BY THE LD. AR DURING THE HEARING HE HAS NOT MADE OUT ANY CASE IN RESPEC T OF THE NON-RETURNED DEPOSIT OF ` 2 LAKHS IN THE SECOND JOINT ACCOUNT (WITH HIS WIFE). WITH REGARD TO THE DEPOSIT OF ` 3 LAKHS IN THE THIRD JOINT ACCOUNT IN THE NAMES OF HIS DAU GHTER AND SON-IN-LAW THE SAME IS NOT EVEN AS MUCH AS CONFIRMED BY HIS DAUGHTER WHOSE MO NEY IT IS CLAIMED TO BE. IN FACT AS RIGHTLY OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THE SAME WOULD BY ITSELF BE NOT SUFFICIENT I.E. UNLESS SUPPORTED BY SOME OTHER CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL AS BY WAY OF WITHDRAWAL OR RECEIPT FROM SOME SOURCE. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE DAUGHTER WAS ABROAD (DUBAI) AT THE RELEVANT I.T.A. NO. 151/COCH/2011 4 TIME. THE SAME MAY BE TRUE BUT THEN THE SAME RAIS ES MORE QUESTIONS THAN IT RESOLVES. THE ONLY THING THE SAME EXPLAINS IS AS TO WHY THE C ONFIRMATION COULD NOT BE GIVEN IMMEDIATELY. THE ASSESSEE HAVING IN FACT OWNED UP T HE DEPOSITS DURING THE POST-SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AND CHANGED HIS STAND ONLY SUBSEQUENTL Y THE SAME (CONFIRMATION) WAS REQUIRED ONLY IN SUPPORT OF THE CHANGED STAND I.E. PER HIS RETURN FILED MUCH LATER OR DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOLLOWING IT. IN FACT IF THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED BELONGED AS CONTENDED TO THE DAUGHTER THE SAME WOULD EITHE R HAVE BEEN LEFT WITH HER FATHER BEFORE GOING ABROAD OR REMITTED FROM ABROAD. THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS OPERATING THE DAUGHTERS ACCOUNT OR IF SHE WAS ONLY A BENAMI IN RESPECT OF THAT BANK ACCOUNT AS AGAIN PLEADED BY THE LD. AR BUT THE SO URCE OF THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEES DAUGHTER (WITH HER H USBAND) WHICH WAS ADMITTEDLY DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE - HIS DAUGHTER AND SON-IN -LAW BEING ABROAD AT THE RELEVANT TIME - AND ACCEPTED AS OUT OF HIS CONSULTANCY INCOME REC EIVED ONLY IN NOVEMBER 2004 I.E. THE SAME SOURCE AS FOR THE OTHER TWO CASH DEPOSITS (FOR LIKE AMOUNTS) MADE SIMULTANEOUSLY IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF SELF AND HIS WIFE. THE FACTS ARE SELF-SPEAKING AND THE ASSESSEES CHANGED STAND UNSUPPORTED BY ANY MAT ERIAL OR CIRCUMSTANCE. THE LAW IN THE MATTER IS WELL-SETTLED AND FOR WHICH WE MAY REFER TO THE DECISIONS BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF V. KUNHAMBU & SONS V. CIT 219 ITR 235 (KER) AND SUDHAKARAN (C.K.) V. ITO 279 ITR 533 (KER). WE ACCORDINGLY FIND NO MERIT I N THE ASSESSEES CASE AND CONSEQUENTLY NO REASON TO INT ERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH WE UPHOLD. 3.2 BEFORE CLOSING THE ISSUE IT WOULD ALSO BE IN ORDER TO EXPRESSLY DEAL WITH THE ASSESSEES GROUND NO. 4 WHICH ALLEGES NON-GRANT OF PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO HIM. WE FIND NO CORRESPONDING GROUND IN THE GROUNDS ASSUMED BEFO RE THE LD. CIT(A) EVEN AS THE ASSESSEE MENTIONS OF A LACK OF OPPORTUNITY FOR PERS ONAL EXPLANATION WHICH THOUGH IS MORE IN THE FORM OF A NARRATION OF EVENTS THAN A SPECIFIC GROUND. FURTHER WE FIND THE CHARGE AS UNWARRANTED; THE ASSESSEE FURNISHING AN E XPLANATION VIDE LETTER DATED 26.10.2009. WHEN AN ASSESSEE FURNISHES AN EXPLANAT ION IT IS FOR IT TO SUPPORT IT WITH I.T.A. NO. 151/COCH/2011 5 COGENT MATERIAL WHICH IT HAS FAILED TO AND THE AO IS NOT OBLIGED TO ON FINDING THE SAME AS NOT ACCEPTABLE WHICH HE DOES SO WITH REASONS C OMMUNICATE THE SAME BEFORE HAND TO THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID GROUND WAS NOT PRESSED BEFORE US AS ALSO APPEARS TO BE THE CASE BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS WELL. IN FA CT THE ASSESSEES CASE HAS BEEN FULLY EXPLAINED BY HIM; HE BEING SPECIFICALLY QUESTIONED WITH REGARD TO THE ABSENCE OF THE `CONFIRMATION BY THE DAUGHTER IN RESPECT OF MONEY ( ` 3 LAKHS) STATED TO BE HER PROPERTY WHILE CONCEDES TO THE NON-EXISTENCE OF ANY CASE IN RESPECT OF THE BANK DEPOSIT IN THE WIFES JOINT ACCOUNT WITH HIM. WE THEREFORE FIND NO MERIT IN THE SAID GROUND AS WELL. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES RE LEVANT GROUNDS. 4.1 GROUND NO. 6 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COMPUTATION OF LONG- TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON RECEIPT OF ` 20 LAKHS FOR SURRENDER OF HIS TENANCY RIGHTS IN RESPEC T OF HIS RENTED FLAT AT MUMBAI DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. THE SAME WAS CLAIMED ON THE BASIS THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE SAID RIGHTS AS ON 1.4.1981 WAS AT ` 3.50 LAKHS. THE AO BEING OF THE VIEW THAT NO SUCH DEDUCTION IS PERMISSIBLE IN VIEW OF S. 55(2)(A)(II) WHICH DEEMS THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF INTER ALIA TENANCY RIGHTS AS NIL QUESTIONED THE ASSESSEE I N ITS RESPECT. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD PAID A SUM OF ` 20 000/- TOWARD THE SAME IN THE YEAR 1961 I.E. WHEN THE PREMISES WAS TAKEN ON RENT IN TERMS OF TH E PREVALENT PRACTICE OF PAYING `PAGDI THE SAME CONTINUING SINCE A LONG TIME. THE SAME BE ING UNSUBSTANTIATED WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO. 4.2 IN APPEAL THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A RECEIPT FOR A REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT OF ` 335/- (DATED 1.9.1961) WHICH WAS EXPLAINED TO BE EQUIVAL ENT TO THE RENT FOR THREE MONTHS THE RATE BEING AT ` 112 PER MONTH. FURTHER A SUM OF ` 2000/- AGAIN DULY RECEIPTED WAS EXPENDED ON THE REPAIR OF DRAINAGE IN 1996. THE SU M OF ` 20 000/- WAS IN FACT PAID FOR THE REPAIRS OF THE FLAT SO AS TO MAKE IT HABITABLE AND WAS ONLY IN TERMS OF THE EXTANT PRACTICE IN MUMBAI. A LETTER FROM THE GRANDDAUGHTE R OF THE OWNER - HE BEING NO MORE - WAS OBTAINED IN CONFIRMATION OF THE FLAT BEING UNDE R TENANCY SINCE 1961. THE LD. CIT(A) I.T.A. NO. 151/COCH/2011 6 WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM QUA THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE TENANCY RIGHTS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE. THE RENT RECEIPT S WERE NOT RELEVANT AND EVEN OTHERWISE CONSTITUTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE INADMISS IBLE U/R. 46A. THE ASSESSEE HAD IN FACT CONTRADICTED HIMSELF WHEN HE STATES THAT THE AMOUNT OF ` 20 000/- WAS GIVEN (TO THE OWNER) FOR CARRYING OUT REPAIRS OF THE FLAT SO THA T THE SAME DID NOT ADMITTEDLY CONSTITUTE THE COST OF ACQUISITION EITHER OF THE FLAT OR OF A NY RIGHTS THEREIN. THE DISALLOWANCE WAS THUS CONFIRMED BY HIM. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS I N APPEAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES WHO MADE LIKE SUBMISS IONS BEFORE US AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THE ASSESSEES CLAIM A S WHOLLY UNTENABLE. THIS IS FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT THE COST OF THE TENANCY RIGHTS WHICH WOULD DEFINITELY FALL TO BE ALLOWED IN THE COMPUTATION OF LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAI NS U/S. 55(2)(A)(I) I.E. WHERE ACTUALLY INCURRED IS TO BE SHOWN AS SO FOR IT TO BE CONSID ERED AS SUCH OR ELSE WOULD STAND TO BE DEEMED BY LAW (S. 55(2)(A)(II)) AS `NIL BEING QUA A SPECIFIED SELF-GENERATED ASSET. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IS TOTALLY UNSUPPORTED BY ANY EVID ENCE AS WELL AS SELF-CONTRADICTORY INASMUCH AS THE SAME WAS ADMITTEDLY FOR CARRYING OU T REPAIRS TO THE FLAT. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION OF IT BEING NOT EXPECTED TO MAINTAIN `RE CEIPTS AFTER OVER FOUR DECADES AND THAT THE MATTER SHOULD THUS BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF P REPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY AS WAS FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI P.U. RADHAKRISHNAN VS. ITO (IN I.T.A. NO. 167/COCH/2006 DATED 11.1.2008 FOR A.Y. 1 999-2000) IS UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WITHOUT ANY MERIT. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED RECEIPTS FOR SUMS AS MEAGRE AS ` 335/- IT IS INCOMPREHENSIBLE THAT HE WOULD NOT QUA AN AMOUNT 60 TIMES HIGHER PAID ALONG WITH AND FURTHER WHICH CONFERS ON HIM SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS. TENANCY RIGHTS IT MAY BE APPRECIATED NEED NOT BE SURRENDE RED BACK TO THE OWNER (OF THE PROPERTY) ITSELF BUT COULD WHERE PURCHASED (AS CLAIMED) BE SOLD/TRANSFERRED TO ANY OTHER AGREEING TO PAY THE FAIR MARKET VALUE THEREOF SO THAT THE S AID TRANSFER COULD ONLY BE ON THE BASIS OF SOME MATERIALS EVIDENCING THE SPECIFIC ACQUISITION THEREOF AT A COST. ON WHAT BASIS ONE MAY ASK WOULD THE ASSESSEE BE ABLE TO TRANSFER OR ASSIGN THE SAID RIGHTS IN FAVOUR OF ANY OTHER PERSON SHOULD HE CHOOSE TO ? IN FACT THERE IS NO QUESTION OF THE ASSESSEE PA YING I.T.A. NO. 151/COCH/2011 7 SUCH A HEAVY SUM APPROXIMATING THE COST OF THE FLA T ITSELF AS INFERRED FROM THE FACT OF THE SAME BEING AT 180 TIMES (APPROX.) THE MONTHLY RENTA L WITHOUT PROPER DOCUMENTATION INCLUDING ITS RECEIPT SIGNIFYING ACQUISITION OF TH E STATED RIGHTS. THE QUESTION OF A DECISION ON THE BASIS OF PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES THE REFORE DOES NOT ARISE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES; THE SAME BEING APPLICABLE ONLY WHERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES CLEARLY INDICATE SO. ALSO THE CLAIM OF THE SAID AMOUNT AS BEING TOW ARD REPAIRS OF THE FLAT ONLY CONTRADICTS THE ASSESSEES CASE ON FACTS AS RIGHTLY OBSERVED B Y THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS THE AMOUNT WAS THUS NOT TOWARD ACQUIRING ANY (TENANCY) RIGHTS. THE RENT IS ONLY FOR OR THE ASSESSEE CAN ONLY BE PRESUMED TO HAVE RENTED A HAB ITABLE ACCOMMODATION. BESIDES WHAT THE RECIPIENT DOES WITH THE MONEY IS OF LITTLE RELEVANCE/SIGNIFICANCE. THE MOOT QUESTION IS WHAT FOR WAS THE AMOUNT CLAIMED PAID I .E. AS FAR AS THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED AND FURTHER IS THERE ANY MATERIAL TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM. IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE IS NO MATERIAL TO EVIDENCE THE PAYMENT MUCH LESS THE PUR POSE FOR WHICH IT WAS GIVEN WITH THE STATED REASON BEING IN APPARENT CONTRADICTION EVEN AS THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED RECEIPTS FOR NOMINAL AMOUNTS BOTH IN ABSOLUTE AND COMPARATIVE TERMS. WE ACCORDINGLY FIND NO MERIT IN THE ASSESSEES CLAIMS AND CONSEQU ENTLY NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH IS THEREFORE UPHELD. WE DECID E ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D. SD/- SD/- (N.VIJAYAKUMARAN) (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: ERNAKULAM DATED: 29TH JULY 2011 GJ COPY TO: 1. SHRI P.KUNHIRAMAN NAIR RAMANILAYAM TRICHAMBA RAM THALIPARAMBA KANNUR. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL C IRCLE-2 CALICUT. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I KOCH I. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL KOCHI. 5. D.R. I.T.A.T. COCHIN BENCH COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE . I.T.A. NO. 151/COCH/2011 8