Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad V. Shri P.Neelakantam, Hyderabad

ITA 1372/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5524 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVI SESHAGIRI RAO
• Keywords: Salary income; Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1372/HYD/13 : ASSTT. YEAR 2009 - 10 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 4(1), HYDERABAD V/S. SHRI P.NEELAKANTAM , HYDERABAD ( PAN - AAOPP 2389 M ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT. K.HARITHA DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAVI SESHAGIRI RAO DATE OF HEARING 17.2.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17.2.2014 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) V, HYDERABAD DATED 31.7.2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. 2. EFFECTIVE GROUND O F THE RE VENUE IN THIS APPEAL R E ADS AS FOLLO W S - I) THOUGH THE O R DER OF CIT(A) IS REASONABLE SECOND APPEAL B EFORE THE LEARNED ITAT IS SUGGESTED KEEPING IN VIEW THE SUBSTANTIAL TAX EFFECT CONSEQUENTS TO CIT(A)S DECISION. II) .. 3. BRIEF FACTS O F THE CA S E ARE T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVING INCOME FROM SALARY AND RENTS FROM HOUSE PROP E RTY. ASSESSEE RECEIV E D SALARY FROM THREE CONCERNS AGGREGATING TO R S .48,80,000 AND ALSO DERIVED INCOME FROM HOU S E PROPERTY OF RS.9,05,093. ASSESSEE FILED RETURN ADMITTING INCOME OF RS.31,51,729 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10, IN WHICH HE HAS CLAIMED LO S S FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AT RS.19,72,213. THE ASSESSEE HAD A BANK ACCOUNT WITH ING VYSYA BANK BEARING NO. 345010015070 AND DURING THE PERIOD FROM JULY TO SEPTE MB ER, 20 0 8, ASSESSEE MADE HUGE DEPOSITS. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING I TA NO. 1 372 / HYD/2013 SHRI P.NEELAKANTAM, HYDERABAD 2 OFFICER, ASSESSEE COULD NO T EXPLAIN THE SOU R CES FOR THOSE DEPOSITS PROPERLY, THOUGH IT WAS SAID THAT THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED WERE FROM O UT O F THE WIT H DRAWALS MADE E ARLIER. BEING SO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF R S .22 LAKHS, UNDER S.69 OF THE ACT, ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE FIL E D DETAILS OF ASSESSEES PERSONAL ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET. THE CIT(A), HAVING BEEN SATISFIED WITH THE SOU R CES F OR THE DEPOSITS A S EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGGRIEVED REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND OTHER MATE R IAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS GONE THROUGH THE CASH WITH DR AWALS MADE DURING THE YEAR AND THE CASH DEPOSITS MADE INTO TH E BANK ACCOUNT IN QUESTION , FRO M THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THAT BEHALF, AND WAS SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. HE NO T ED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER PRESUMED THAT THE AMOUNTS WITHDRAWN MIGHT HAVE BEEN GIVEN FOR ACQUISITION OF LAND. HOWEVER, IN THE ABSEN CE OF ANY EVIDENCE BROUG H T ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SUPPO R T OF SUCH AN INFERENCE, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UTILI S ED THE MONIES WITHDRAWN FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE, FOUND NO JUSTIFICATION TO DISBELIEVE TH E EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE SOURCES F O R THE DEPOSITS. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE KERALA HIGH COU R T IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. K . J.SRIDHARAN (201 ITR 1010), AND DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.22 LAKH S MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A). IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL BROU G H T ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUGGEST THAT THE WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT, HAVE BEEN UTILI S ED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE, OR FOR THE PURPOSE O F ACQUI S IT I ON OF LAND, AS PRESUMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN OUR OPINION AS WELL, W A S NOT JU S TIFIED IN REJECTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ACCORDINGLY, UPHOLD THE ORD E R OF THE CIT(A), AND REJECT THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL. 5 . IN THE RESULT, REVENUE S APPEAL IS DISMISSED. I TA NO. 1 372 / HYD/2013 SHRI P.NEELAKANTAM, HYDERABAD 3 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 17.2.2014 SD/ - SD/ - (SAKTIJIT DEY) (CHANDRA POOJARI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT/ - 17 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI P.NEELAKANTAM , PROPRIETOR, VASU PHARMA, 1 - 2 - 412/1/2/A, GAGANMAHAL COLONY, HYDERABAD 2 . ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX 4(1), HYDERABAD 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) V , HYDERABAD 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX I V HYDERABAD 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S