Shri K.S. Luthra, v. DCIT,

ITA 816/PUN/2010 | 2002-2003
Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 81624514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAFPK4629P
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 816/PUN/2010
Duration Of Justice 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant Shri K.S. Luthra,
Respondent DCIT,
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 31-01-2011
Assessment Year 2002-2003
Appeal Filed On 28-05-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A PUNE BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.S. PANNU ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 816/PN/2010 (ASSTT. YEAR: 2002-03) SHRI KASTURILAL SARDARILAL LUTHRA URMIL SHRIN MEADOWS GANGAPUR ROAD NASIK PAN AAFPK 4629 P APPELLANT VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CEN. CIR. 1 NASIK RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : MR. SHRI M.K. KULKARNI RESPONDENT BY : MS. M. MADHUSMITA ORDER PER G.S. PANNU A.M THIS APPEAL PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 -03 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I I PUNE DATED 17-03-2010 WHICH IN TURN HAS ARISEN FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 31/12/2008 UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 1 53A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED MULTIPLE GROUND S OF APPEAL IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL ESSENTIALLY THE SOLITARY GRIEVANCE IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS. 61.65 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUN T OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN A STATEMENT UNDER SECTI ON 132(4) OF THE ACT DURING THE SEARCH ACTION. 3. IN BRIEF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RIS E TO THE SAID ADDITION CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDU AL CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONTRACT AND VEHICLE HIRING. A SEARCH AND SEI ZURE ACTION UNDER SECTION 132(1) OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON 28-09-2006 ON LUTHRA GR OUP OF CASES OF WHICH ASSESSEE IS ALSO A MEMBER. ACCORDINGLY ASSESSEE WA S ALSO SUBJECTED TO AN ITA 816/PN/2010 SHRI K.S. LUTHRA A.Y. 2002-03 2 ACTION UNDER SECTION 132(1) OF THE ACT. IN THE COUR SE OF SEARCH CERTAIN INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND AND SEIZED. A NOTI CE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 12/02/07 REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE A RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE CAPTIONED ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN RESPONSE ASSESSE E FILED A RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 9 11 860/- AS AGAINST AN INCOME OF RS. 8 10 224/- DECLARED IN THE RETURN ORIGINALLY FILED UNDER SECTI ON 139(1) OF THE ACT ON 25/11/02. IN THE ASSESSMENT SUBSEQUENTLY FINALIZED UNDER SECT ION 153A OF THE ACT ON 31/12/08 THE TOTAL INCOME HAS BEEN DETERMINED AT R S. 70 76 860/- AFTER MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 61 65 000/- WHICH IS THE SUBJEC T MATTER OF DISPUTE BEFORE US. 4. IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS A BUNDLE OF LOOSE PAPERS MARKED AS A-34 WAS FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PR EMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SEIZED MATERIAL REFLECTED PURCHASE OF LAND BY THE A SSESSEE ALONG WITH THREE OTHER CO-OWNERS OF THE FAMILY AT PHALKE SMARAK NASHIK. T HE TOTAL COST OF THE LAND AS EVIDENCED BY THE SEIZED MATERIAL WAS RS. 1 37 75 0 00/-. HOWEVER AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT ON 25/11/02 THE CO ST OF THE LAND WAS DECLARED AT RS. 55 00 090/-. THUS THE SEIZED MATERIAL INDICATE D A PAYMENT OF RS. 82 72 910/- OVER AND ABOVE THE DECLARED COST OF THE LAND. THE SEIZED MATERIAL ALSO REVEALED THE DETAIL OF CASH PAID AMOUNTING TO RS. 70 11 000/- I.E. RS. 11 000/- PAID ON 26/03/02; RS. 60.00 LAKHS PAID ON 09/04/02; AND BALANCE OF RS. 10.00 LAKHS PAID IN THE MONTH OF AUGUST 2002. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED IN THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER THAT ASSESSEE ADMITTED IN A STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132( 4) OF THE ACT ON 13/10/06 THAT THE CASH PAYMENTS OF RS. 70 11 000/- WERE MADE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND F URTHER STATED THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME SHALL BE FILED ACCORDINGLY AND TAX ES PAID. A SUM OF RS. 61.65 LAKHS WAS ADMITTED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 WHILE THE BALANCE OF RS. 8.46 LAKHS WAS ADMITTED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. HOWEVER IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN RESPONSE TO ITA 816/PN/2010 SHRI K.S. LUTHRA A.Y. 2002-03 3 A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT THE INCOME OF RS. 61.65 LAKHS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT DECLARED. ON BEING ASKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE REASON FOR SUCH NON-DECLARATION ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE FROM KNOWN SOURCES AND IT WAS NOT AN UNDISCLOS ED INCOME. IT WAS EXPLAINED VIDE COMMUNICATION DATED 12/12/08 THAT CASH PAYMENTS WERE MADE OUT OF WITHDRAWALS OF RS 47 25 838/- FROM M/S LUTHR A CONSTRUCTION A FIRM IN WHICH HE WAS A PARTNER AND CASH BALANCE OF RS 14 7 5 000/- WITH HIS WIFE LATE SMT. URMILA K. LUTHRA. HOWEVER IN A SUBSEQUENT CO MMUNICATION DATED 29/12/08 TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSEE AGAIN AGREED TO SURRENDER RS. 61.65 LAKHS. THE CONTENTS OF THE SAID COMMUNICATION HAVE BEEN EX TRACTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH REVEAL THAT AS PER THE ASSESSEE THE SUM OF RS. 14.75 LAKHS WAS ALREADY DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE THOUGH MISTAKENL Y FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND THE BALANCE OF RS. 46.90 LAKHS WAS AGAI N SURRENDERED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED THE REPLIES OF TH E ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE RETRACTION BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS ORIGINAL ST ATEMENT DATED 13/10/06 WAS NOT VALID AND THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN DONE TO AVOID PAYMENT OF TAXES. ACCORDINGLY A SUM OF RS. 61.65 LAKHS HAS BEEN ADDE D AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN LINE WITH THE SURRENDE R MADE IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT ON 13/10/2 006. 7. THE AFORESAID ADDITION WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL BEF ORE THE CIT(A). IN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ASS ESSEE RAISED VARIOUS OBJECTIONS CHALLENGING THE ADDITION ON FACTS AND IN LAW. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE A SSESSING OFFICER ALSO. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPE ALS) HAS UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS. 61.65 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. AGAINST THE AFORESAID ASSESSEE IS IN APPEA L BEFORE US. ITA 816/PN/2010 SHRI K.S. LUTHRA A.Y. 2002-03 4 8. BEFORE US FIRST AND FOREMOST SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT IS THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE ADMISSION M ADE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH THE ASSESSEE COULD PROVE THE AVAILABILITY OF THE CASH F ROM KNOWN SOURCES AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION BY MERELY RELYING ON THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE MAD E AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE OF THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES ASSESSEE COULD NOT RECOLLECT THE CORRECT STATE OF AFFAIRS DU RING SEARCH AND THEREFORE THE ADMISSION WAS WRONGLY MADE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. I T IS EXPLAINED THAT AT THE TIME OF SEARCH ADMISSION WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNTS OF LOANS ADVANCED TO SOME PERSONS WHICH WERE RECEIVED BACK FOR WHICH TH E ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CLAIM THE AMOUNT OF RS . 61.65 LAKHS WAS SURRENDERED AND THE SAME WAS EXPLAINED AS HAVING BE EN USED TO MAKE THE PAYMENTS FOR PURCHASE OF LAND OVER AND ABOVE THE DE CLARED CONSIDERATION. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A PROPER FRAME OF MIND AT THE TIME OF THE SEARCH OPERATION DUE TO HIS ILL-HEALTH AND DEMISE OF HIS WIFE. IT IS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE SEIZED MAT ERIAL ITSELF SHOWED THAT ONLY A SUM OF RS. 11 000/- WAS PAID ON 26/03/02 OUT OF THE TOTAL UNDECLARED CONSIDERATION OF RS. 70 11 000/- WHILE THE BALANCE WAS PAID DURING THE NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED CO UNSEL THIS SHOWED THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE DURING THE YE AR SINCE THE INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF LAND HAS EVIDENTLY BEEN MADE IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN THIS MANNER IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT TH E LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE UNJUSTIFIABLY REJECTED THE RETRACTION MADE BY THE A SSESSEE AT THE TIME OF FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DR APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE HAS VEHEMENTLY DEFENDED THE ADDITION IN QUESTION. ACCOR DING TO HER IT IS UNDENIABLE ITA 816/PN/2010 SHRI K.S. LUTHRA A.Y. 2002-03 5 THAT THE REAL CONSIDERATION FOR ACQUISITION OF LAND WAS NOT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME WHICH WA S REVEALED BY THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE BURDEN WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ADMISSION MADE AT THE TIME OF SE ARCH WAS WRONG. IT IS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT AFTER THE ADMISSION MADE ON 13/10/ 06 THE RETRACTION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY IN THE RETURN OF INCOME F URNISHED ON 14/05/08 WHICH IS AFTER A PROLONGED DELAY AND CANNOT BE SAID TO BE BONAFIDE. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THE LOWER AUTH ORITIES HAVE RIGHTLY IGNORED THE RETRACTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN AS THE SAME WAS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. IN THE COURSE OF HER SUBMISS IONS RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- 1. PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. LTD. VS. STATE OF KERALA & ANOTHER 91 ITR 18 (SC) 2. DR. S.C. GUPTA VS. CIT 248 ITR 782 (ALL.) 3. HOTEL KIRAN VS. ACIT 82 ITD 453 (PUNE) 4. GREENVIEW RESTAURANT VS. ACIT 263 ITR 169 (GAUH ATI) 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE MATE RIAL TO WHICH OUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN DRAWN DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. IN THIS C ASE THE CRUX OF THE DISPUTE EMANATES FROM THE ADMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH TO SURRENDER AN INCOME OF RS 61.65 LAKHS AS UNDISCLOSE D INCOME REPRESENTED BY THE INVESTMENT IN ACQUISITION OF A PROPERTY AT PHAL KE SMARAK NASHIK. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT IN TERMS OF DOCUMENTS SEIZED DURING TH E COURSE OF SEARCH ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO HAVE INVESTED MONIES IN THE ACQUISITIO N OF STATED PROPERTY OVER AND ABOVE THE CONSIDERATION DECLARED. THIS FACTOR PROMP TED THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A DECLARATION UNDER SECTION 132(3) OF THE ACT TO THE EFFECT THAT HE WOULD OFFER AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS 61.65 LAKHS IN THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2003-04. HOWEVER THE SAID AMOUNT WAS NOT SHOWN AS AN ADDITIONAL INCO ME WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT FOR THE ITA 816/PN/2010 SHRI K.S. LUTHRA A.Y. 2002-03 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. IN THIS CONTEXT WE HAVE C AREFULLY EXAMINED THE STATEMENT RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FIND THAT TH E UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT WAS STATED TO BE OUT OF CASH BALANCE REPRESENTED BY THE ADVANCES REALIZED FROM HIS FRIENDS AND RELATIVES WHICH WERE STATED TO BE NOT DISCLOSED. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE REQUISITE DETAILS THE ASSESSEE MADE THE SURREN DER. HOWEVER IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRO NTED AS TO NON- DECLARATION OF SUCH INCOME IN THE RETURN ASSESSEE SOUGHT TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES AS WITHDRAWALS FROM A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND ALSO CAS H BALANCE AVAILABLE WITH HIS SPOUSE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE ADMISSION MA DE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH WAS A DETAILED ONE NOT ONLY ADMITTING ADDITIONAL INCOME BUT ALSO STATING THE SOURCE OF SUCH ADDITIONAL INCOME. COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT TO INTRODUCE A NEW SOURCE WHICH WAS HITHERTO NOT EXPLAINED THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN OUR VIEW CLEAR LY SHOW THAT THE ADMISSION MADE UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE TERM ED AS DONE IN IGNORANCE OF FACTS. MOREOVER IT IS ALSO EMERGING FROM RECORD TH AT EVEN DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON BEING CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE VIDE COMMUNICATION DATED 29.12.2008 AGAIN AGREED TO SURRENDER A SUM OF RS 61 .65 LAKHS. FACTUALLY SPEAKING THE AFORESAID ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE CLEA RLY MILITATES AGAINST HIS PRESENT APPEAL SEEKING TO TERM THE IMPUGNED ADDITIO N AS UNWARRANTED. IN OUR VIEW THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES MADE NO MISTAKE IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION. MOREOVER EVEN WITH REGARD TO THE NEW SOURCE SOUGHT TO BE EXPLAINED DURING THE ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS MADE THE F OLLOWING DISCUSSION: M/S LUTHRA CONSTRUCTIONS WAS A JOINT VENTURE FIRM IN WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS A PARTNER AND FILED THE RETURNS OF INCOME UPTO THE AY 2000-20 01. THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE FIRM WERE STATED TO HAVE BEEN DISCONTINUED THEREAFTER AN D ALL THE ASSETS AND LIABILITIES WERE NOT CLEARED TILL DATE AND THE FIRM WAS NOT DISSOLVE D. IT WAS STATED THAT THERE WAS A CASH BALANCE OF RS 38 75 208/- AS ON 31.3.2000. THE CHEQ UES-ON-HAND AT RS 33 09 232/- WERE CLEARED DURING THE AY 2001-02 I.E. AS ON 27.4. 2000 AS PER THE BANK STATEMENT. AS THE APPELLANT BEING THE MANAGING PARTNER OF THE SAI D FIRM THE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE SAID FIRM WERE UTILIZED TO THE EXTENT OF RS 47 25 8 38/- FOR THE PAYMENT TOWARDS INVESTMENT IN PHALKE SMARAK PROPERTY AS ON 9.4.2002. THE APPEL LANTS EXPLANATION REGARDING THE SOURCES IS NOT ACCEPTED Y THE AO IN HIS REPORT ON T HE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO NEED TO MAKE UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IF THE APPELLANT WAS HA VING SUFFICIENT CASH BALANCE OUT OF THE ACCOUNTED SOURCES. THE AO REJECTED THE APPELLAN TS EXPLANATION AS AN AFTER THOUGHT AND RELIED ON THE STATEMENT U/S 132(4) FOR JUSTIFYI NG THE ADDITION. A PERUSAL OF THE ITA 816/PN/2010 SHRI K.S. LUTHRA A.Y. 2002-03 7 TRANSACTIONS OF THE FIRM CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THERE I S A LONG GAP BETWEEN THE AVAILABILITY OF THE FUNDS WITH THE SAID FIRM AND THE CASH PAYMENTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AS PER THE SEIZED DOCUMENT A-34 FOR INVESTMENT IN THE SAID PRO PERTY. THE APPELLANT IS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THE GAP AND CONVENIENTLY TAKEN THE SHELTER THAT THERE WERE SUFFICIENT FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE FIRM AND THE SAME WERE UTILIZED IN THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROPERTY. THE FIRM FILED THE LAST RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 200 0-01 AND THERE WAS NO RETURN OF INCOME FILED SUBSEQUENTLY. THE APPELLANT IS UNABLE TO PROV E THE TRANSACTIONS SATISFACTORILY. IF THE APPELLANT HAD WITHDRAWN THE CASH FROM THE DECLARED SOURCES THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN REFLECTED IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE AY 2002-03 U/S 139 OF THE ACT BUT THE APPELLANT SHOWED THE INVESTMENT ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS 55 00 090/- AS AGAINST TOTAL INVESTMENT OF RS 1 37 75 000/-. THE CLAIM OF THE AP PELLANT IS NEITHER CONFIRMED BY THE OTHER PARTNER NOR THERE IS OTHER ACCEPTABLE EVIDENC E THAT THE CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE BY HIM WERE ACTUALLY UTILIZED FOR THE CASH PAYMENTS OF INVESTMENT IN PHALKE SMARAK PROPERTY. THE FIRM IS A SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITY AND A SSESSED TO TAX SEPARATELY. THE APPELLANT IS A SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITY AND ASSESSED T O TAX SEPARATELY. THEREFORE IT IS FOR THE APPELLANT TO PROVE THAT THE FUNDS WITHDRAWN FROM TH E FIRM ACTUALLY UTILIZED FOR THE CASH PAYMENTS OF INVESTMENT IN THE SAID PROPERTY. THE GA P BETWEEN THE LAST WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE SAID FIRM AND THE CASH PAYM ENTS MADE BY HIM IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE SAID PROPERTY IS N OT EXPLAINED PROPERLY. MERE AVAILABILITY OF THE SOURCES WITH THE FIRM IS NOT ENOUGH UNLESS S OURCES WERE SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN UTILIZED WITH CONCRETE EVIDENCE. THEREFORE THE APP ELLANTS CLAIM IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND WAS RIGHTLY REJECTED BY THE AO AS AN AFTER-THOUGHT. AS REGARDS THE PAYMENT OF RS 14 75 000/- BY APPELLANTS WIFE LATE SMTL URMILA LU THRA WAS ALSO NOT EXPLAINED SHOWING THE PROPER SOURCES. THERE WERE NO EVIDENCES FOUND A T THE TIME OF SEARCH REGARDING THESE TRANSACTIONS BY THE APPELLANT. THE RETRACTION MADE BY THE APPELLANT AFTER A PERIOD OF 19 MONTHS STRENGTHENS THE ARGUMENTS OF THE AO THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT WAS AN AFTER-THOUGHT AND WITHOUT ANY PRO PER BASIS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL TO NEGATE THE AFORES AID WE HEREBY AFFIRM THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) U PHOLDING THE ADDITION. 11. THE LAST GROUND RELATING TO CHARGEABILITY OF IN TEREST UNDER SECTION 234A 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT BEING CONSEQUENTIAL IN NAT URE NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. 12. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 31ST DAY OF J ANUARY 2011. SD/- SD/- (I.C. SUDHIR) (G. S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE DATED: 31ST JANUARY 2011 B COPY TO:- 1) SHRI KASTURILAL S LUTHRA NASHIK 2) THE DCIT CEN.CIR. 1 NASHIK 3) THE CIT (A) II NASHIK 4) THE CIT CEN. NAGPUR 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE A BENCH I.T.A.T. PUNE. BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASST. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T. PUNE ITA 816/PN/2010 SHRI K.S. LUTHRA A.Y. 2002-03 8