Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Hyderabad V. Sri Peddi Nagghabhushanam, Hyderabad

ITA 1676/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 167622514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1676/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(2), HYDERABAD SRI PEDDI NAGABHUSHANAM, C/O PEDDI NAGHABHUSHANAM BROILER FARM, TEEGUL (V), JAGADEVPUR (M), MEDAK DIST PAN ANFPP 06595 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY SHRI RAJAT MITRA ASSESSEE BY SHRI S. RAMA RAO DATE OF HEARING 10-12-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07-01-2015 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.: THIS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER DATED 14/08/2013 OF LD. CIT(A)-VI, HYDERABAD PERTAINING T O AY 2009-10. THE EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS AS UND ER: THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE SUBMISSIONS O F THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE UNEXPLAINED IN INDIA INFOLIN E LTD. OPINING THAT THE SOURCES FOR INVESTMENTS OF RS. 15, 54,000 ARE OUT OF SALE PROCEEDINGS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, SALE OF FLATS, TRANSFER FROM OTHER BANK ACCOUNTS AND BORROWAL FROM FRIENDS AND RELATIVES. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE IN DISPU TE ARE, ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. FOR THE AY UNDER DISPUTE, ASSESSEE F ILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 02/09/09 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1, 62,790 AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 1 LAKH. DURING THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDING, AO WHILE EXAMINING THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ACCOUN T HELD BY 2 ITA NO. 1676/HYD/2013 SRI PEDDI NAGABHUSHANAM ASSESSEE WITH HDFC BANK NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS M ADE PURCHASE AND SALE TRANSACTIONS OF SHARES WITH INDIA INFOLINE LTD. ON DIFFERENT DATES AMOUNTING TO RS. 15,54,000. HE, THEREFORE, CA LLED UPON ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY SUCH DEPOSITS SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF ASSESSEE. THOUGH ASSESSEE OBJ ECTED TO SUCH ACTION ON THE PART OF AO, BUT, AO BY OBSERVING THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION REGARDING THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT, EXCEPT, FURNISHING LEDGER EXTRACT OF H IS ACCOUNT WITH INDIA INFOLINE LTD., TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 15,54,000 AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE ACT AND ADDED TO THE INCOM E OF ASSESSEE. BEING AGGRIEVED OF SUCH ADDITION, ASSESSEE PREFERRE D APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). 3. IN COURSE OF APPEAL HEARING, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 15,54,000 WAS INVESTED IN FUTURE AND OPTIONS AND SHARES THROUGH DEMAT ACCOUNT OF M/S INDIA INFOLINE LTD. AND THE SOURCES OF SUCH INVESTMENTS ARE THROUGH HDFC BANK, WHICH IN TURN, WERE OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF LAND, SALE PROCEEDS OF FLAT, TRANSFER FROM OTHER BANK ACCOUNT, ETC. FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE THAT THE SOURCE OF SUCH INVESTMENTS WERE EXPLAINED BEFOR E AO, BUT, HE MADE ADDITION MERELY ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISES WI THOUT BRINGING ANY CONTRARY EVIDENCE TO DISPROVE ASSESSEES CLAIM. 4. LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE IN THE CONTEXT OF FACTS AND MATERIALS ON RECORD FOUND THAT ASSESSEE MAINTAINED ACCOUNTS WITH TWO BANKS I.E. SBH, GAZWEL CLAIMED TO BE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND HDFC BANK FOR PERSONAL TR ANSACTIONS. HE FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE INVESTMENTS IN TO FUTURES AND OPTIONS AS WELL AS SHARES WERE THROUGH THE DEMAT ACCOUNT OF INDIA I NFOLINE LTD. HAVE FLOWN FROM HDFC BANK AND THE MAIN SOURCES FOR SUCH INVESTMENTS, IN TURN, WERE OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL LAN D, SALE OF FLATS AND TRANSFER FROM BANK ACCOUNT AND BORROWALS FROM FRIEN DS AND RELATIVES, WHICH WERE ALSO EXAMINED BY AO SEPARATELY. LD. CIT( A) FINDING THAT 3 ITA NO. 1676/HYD/2013 SRI PEDDI NAGABHUSHANAM SOURCE OF SUCH INVESTMENTS WERE ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN ED, DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY AO. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIE S AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS OTHER MATERIALS ON RECORD. AS CAN BE SEEN, AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 15, 54,000 WITHOUT PROPERLY CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND MATERIALS BROUGH T TO HIS NOTICE. ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDER OF LD. C IT(A) THAT THE SOURCES OF SUCH INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN PROPERLY EXPLAINED BY ASSESSEE THROUGH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES. IT IS ALSO A FACT ON RECORD THAT AO WITHOUT APPRECIATING FACTS AND MATERIALS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY ASSESSEE HAS MADE ADDITION MERELY ON CONJECTURES AN D SURMISES AND NO CONTRARY MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY AO TO DISPROVE THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. EVEN AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, LD. DR HAS FAILED TO CONTROVERT THE FACTUAL FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) THAT THE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE FROM EXPLAINED SOURCES. IN TH E AFORESAID VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), WHICH IS ACCORDINGLY UPHELD. GROUND RAISED BY DEPAR TMENT IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMI SSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07/01/2015. SD/- SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JU DICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 7 TH JANUARY, 2015 KV 4 ITA NO. 1676/HYD/2013 SRI PEDDI NAGABHUSHANAM COPY TO:- 1) ITO, WARD 9(2), 2 ND FLOOR, D-BLOCK, IT TOWERS, HYDERABAD. 2) SRI PEDDI NAGABHUSHANAM, 17-1-391/1/S/358&359/F. NO. 305, SAI SAROVER RESIDENCY, SINGARENI COLONY, HYDERA BAD. 3) CIT(A)-VI, HYDERABAD 4) CIT-VI, HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD.