Bojja Purushotham Rao, Hyderabad V. ITO,Ward-1, Siddipet

ITA 1302/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 82534 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B RAMA KRISHNA
• Assessee Lawyers: T CHAITANYA KUMAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1302/HYD/14 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 SHRI BOJJA PURUSHOTHAM RAO, MEDAK (PAN ARMPP 9628 A ) V/S. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 1. SIDDIPET (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI T.CHAITANYA KUMAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.RAMAKRISHNA DR DATE OF HEARING 13 . 11 .2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14.11.2014 O R D E R PER P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IV, HYDERABAD DATED 18.10.2013, AND THE MAIN ISSUE INVOLVED THEREIN RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.38,10,075 M AD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON AC C OUN T O F CASH DEPOSIT S FOUND TO B E MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN IN DI VIDUAL, WHO IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SUPPLY OF MEDICINES. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED BY HIM ON 8.3.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,80,000 CAL C ULATE D AT THE RATE OF 10% ON GROSS RECEIPTS OF R S .18,00,000 UN D ER S.44AF OF THE ACT. ON THE BASIS OF THE INF ORMATION RECEIVED REGARDING SUBSTANTIAL CASH DEPOSITS MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE IN TH E BANK AC C OUN T MAI N TAIN E D WITH KOTAK MAHIN D RA BANK MATHANGI BRANCH, THE CA S E OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SEL E CTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR SCRUTINY. DURING THE COU R SE OF ASSESSMENT I TA NO. 1302/H YD/20 14 SHRI B OJJA PURUSHOTHAM RAO, MEDAK 2 PROCE E DI N GS, THE ASSESSEE COULD NO T EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS MA D E IN THE BANK ACCOUNT A N D KEEPING IN VIEW THIS FAILURE O F TH E ASSESSEE , THE TOTAL CASH DEPOSITS MA D E IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS.38,10,075 WERE TREATED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS . THE SAID AMOUN T WAS ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER S.68 IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER S.143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 30.12.2011. 3. AGAINST THE O R D E R PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UN D ER S.143(3), AN APPEAL WAS P R EFERRED B Y TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND SIN C E THERE WAS NO COMPLI A N C E ON THE P ART OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE NO T I C ES ISSUED BY HIM FIXING THE HEARING FROM TIME TO T I ME, THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRME D THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER S.68 OBSERVING THAT THE ONUS THAT LAY ON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE RELEVANT CASH CRE D ITS IN TERMS OF S.68 W A S NO T SATISFACT OR ILY D ISCH A RGED. AGGRI E VED BY THE O R DER O F THE LEARNED CIT(A), ASSESSEE HAS P REFERRED THIS APPEAL B E FOR E THE TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LEARNED COUN S EL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) DURIN G TH E COU R SE OF APP E L L ATE PROCEEDINGS COULD NO T B E RECEIVED BY TH E ASSESSEE AS THERE WAS CHANGE IN THE ADDRESS AND THIS RESULTED IN NON - COMPLI A NCE OF THE SAID NOTICES. HE HAS ALSO FIL E D A COPY O F TH E TR ADING AND PROFIT AND LOSS A CCOUNT OF TH E ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UN D E R C ON S IDER A TION TO POINT OUT THAT THE ACTUAL TURNOVER OF THE BUSIN E SS O F THE ASSESSEE WAS MORE THAN RS. 30 - LAKHS AND CASH DEPO S ITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF TH E ASSESSEE WERE MADE OUT OF THE GROSS RECEIPT S OF THE BUSINESS. HE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSES SEE, HO WE VER , COULD NO T EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE SAID DEPO S ITS EITHER B E FORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER AND I TA NO. 1302/H YD/20 14 SHRI B OJJA PURUSHOTHAM RAO, MEDAK 3 SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY. HE HAS URGED THAT THE MATTER MAY, THEREFORE, BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR GIVING SUCH OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. KEEPING IN VIEW THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEP OSITS FOUND TO BE MADE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND SINCE THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS ALSO NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION IN THIS REGARD, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS FOUND TO BE MADE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. AS UNDERTAKEN BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, TH E ASSESSEE SHALL RENDER ALL THE POSSIBLE COOPERATION TO ENABLE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH ON THIS ISSUE EXPEDITIOUSLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 14 TH NOVEMBER, 2014 SD/ - SD/ - ( ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN ) ( P.M.JAGTAP ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT/ - 14 TH NOVEMBER 2014 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI BOJJA PURUSHOTHAM RAO (MEDAK) C./O. SHRI T.CHAITANYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE, FLAT 49809 METRO RESIDENCY, RAJBHAVAN RAOD, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD 2 . INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, SIDDIPET 3. 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) I V, HYDERABAD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX - I II , HYDERABAD 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S