ORDER 

Per G Manjunatha, AM:

These five appeals filed by different assessee’s are directed against separate, but identical and interconnected orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-46, Mumbai, all even dated 31-08-2016, 06-09-2016 and 07-09-2016 for the AY 1997-98, AY 2002-03 and AY 2003-04. Since, facts are identical and issues are interconnected, for the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this consolidated order.

2. Both assessee’s have taken number of grounds in their respective appeals, but, the issues involved in these appeals are mainly on additions towards unexplained investments in various assets and investments in their name and their children’s name and also cash deposits in bank accounts, which are emerged from the panchanama drawn by the ACB (Anti Corruption Bureau) during the course of search in their residence. We, therefore, deem it appropriate not to reproduce grounds of appeal taken in each appeal, rather, proceed to dispose of appeals, on the basis of issues involved in these appeals.

ITA. No. 7591 to 7593/Mum/2016- Shri Baban Shivaram Kadam

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a State Govt. Employee deriving salary income. He is an accused in MPSC scam. The ACB conducted search in the residence of the assessee. During search, various documents and investments were found and a panchnama was drawn. The said information was passed on to the Assessing Officer. The assessee did not filed regular returns of income. The AO reopened assessment on the basis information received from the ACB and accordingly, a notice u/s 148 dated 11-03-2014 was issued and served on the assessee. The assessee did not file return in response to 148 notice, because he was in judicial custody since 2-7-2002. Thereafter, the AO issued various notices u/s 142(1) along with questionnaire and called for various details. The asseseee did not attend for hearing, but replied to show-cause notice issued by the AO and furnished explanation with regard to various issues raised by the AO. The AO completed assessment u/s 144, r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 31-03-2005 by making various additions which are mainly based on panchnama drawn by the ACB during course of search conducted in the residence of the assessee.

4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before first appellate authority. The assessee has filed certain additional evidences in support of his case in respect of various additions made by the AO. The main contention of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) are that the AO has made additions towards various investments in the name of his family members, even though said investments are not belongs to him, and also sources for investments has been explained with complete details. The CIT(A) forwarded additional evidences to the AO for his comments and verification. The AO vide his remand report dated 6-4-2010 commented on additional evidences and its admissibility. The CIT(A), on the basis of evidences filed by the assessee and also taken into account remand report of the AO, partly allowed appeal of the assessee, where she had deleted certain additions wherever the assessee could file necessary details. However, she had confirmed certain additions wherever, no details has been filed in support of said additions. Aggrieved by the CIT(A) orders, the assessee is in appeal before us.

5. The first issue that came up for our consideration for AY 1997-98 from ground No. 1 of appeal is addition towards unexplained investments in the name of wife and children of the assessee for Rs. 11,42,202/-. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed addition of Rs. 11,42,202/- out of total addition of Rs. 25,34,400/- made by the AO towards various investments in IDBI bonds, UTI and IFCI bonds in the name of wife and children for the reason that the assessee could not file any evidences in support of source of income.

6. The ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) was erred in confirming addition even though sour