Satyapal Reddy Gaddam , Nizamabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Nizamabad

ITA 1722/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1567 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 20-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M PADMA
• Assessee Lawyers: K A SAI PRASAD
• Keywords: Peak credit; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(1); 201

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX A PPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A ', HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1722 / HYD/201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 13 - 14 SATYAPAL REDDY GADDAM, NIZAMABAD. PAN AFSPG 6546A VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 3 , NIZAMABAD A PPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY: S H RI K.A. SAI PRASAD REVENUE BY: S MT. M. PADMA DATE OF HEARING: 19 / 0 8 / 201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05 / 0 9 /201 9 O R D E R PER S HRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN , A .M. T H IS IS AN APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 20 13 - 1 4 AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) 5 , HYDERABAD , DATED, 0 8 / 05 /201 8 . 2. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FIND THAT THIS APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US WITH A DELAY OF 24 DAYS. TO THIS EFFECT, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT, AFFIRMING THEREIN THAT, SINCE HE HAS NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) , WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY HIS AR, THE SAME WAS NOT SHOWN TO THE REGULAR AUDITOR AND ALSO DID NO T KNOW ABOUT THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER PASSED BY THE AO. LATER, WHEN APPROACHED THE AUDITOR FOR SUGGESTION, HE ADVISED TO FILE AN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT, HYD. REFERRING TO THE ABOVE FAC TS, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT DELAY OCCURRED DUE TO IGNORANCE REGARDING FURTHER APPEAL TO BE FILED AND IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO HIM . IT WAS, THEREFORE, REQUESTED TO CONDONE THE DELAY AS IT WAS NOT INTENTIONAL SINCE, THE I.T.A. NO. 1722 /HYD/1 8 SATYAPAL REDDY GADDAM, NIZAMABAD 2 ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY REASONABLE CAUSE IN FILING THE APPEAL BELATEDLY, WE CONDONE THE SAID DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING AND ADJUDICATION. 3 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE , THE ASSESSEE E - FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2013 - 14 ON 16/06/2014 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,04,540/ - , WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND ACCORDINGL Y, NOTICE U/S 143(2), DATED 28/08/2015 WAS ISSUED AND DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME, COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF HIS ACCOUNT IN SBI. ALSO THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FILE COPY OF OTHER BANK STATEM ENTS HELD IN ASSESSEES NAME ALONG WITH THE SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE AO NOR FILED ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSION AGAINST SHOW CAUSE LETTER DATED 08/03/2016 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE POSTING FOR HEARING WAS FIXED ON 17/03/2016. HENCE, THE AO PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT AS UNDER: 3.1 THE AO OBSERVED THAT O N VERIFICATION OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE OF STATE BANK OF INDIA(AS SUBMITTED BY THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE) & ANDHRA BANK(OBTAINED FROM THE BANK), IT WA S NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D DEPOSITED CASH TO THE TUNE OF RS. 15,88,000/ - IN HIS ANDHRA BANK A CCOUNT & RS. 42,90,020/ - IN HIS STATE BANK OF INDIA ACCOUNT DURING THE F.Y. 2012 - 13. SINCE THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF THESE CASH DEPOSITS, PEAK CREDIT STATEMENT OF THE BANK STATEMENTS HA D BEEN DRAWN JOINTLY AS THE ASSESSE E HAS REGULARLY DEPOSITED & WITHDRAWN CASH IN THESE TWO BANK ACCOUNTS. AS PER THE PEAK CREDIT STATEMENT, THE HIGHEST CASH BALANCE IN THE ACCOUNT IS RS. 32,12,742/ - . HENCE RS. I.T.A. NO. 1722 /HYD/1 8 SATYAPAL REDDY GADDAM, NIZAMABAD 3 31, 79,000 / - [RS. 32,12,742 - RS. 33,742(BEING OPENING BALANCE IN BANK STATEMENT) ] WA S BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE AO BY ADDING THE SAME TO THE TOTAL I NCOME OF THE AS SES SEE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 5. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE STATING THAT DUE TO SOME PERSONAL PROBLEMS, HE COULD NOT FURNISH THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO. THE CIT(A) SENT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO THE AO FOR REMAND REPORT. 5.1 AFTER CONSIDE RING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REMAND REPORT OBTAINED FROM THE AO, THE CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 10,72,242/ - , OUT OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS. 32,12,742/ - . 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESS EE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) IS NOT CORRECT EITHER ON FACTS OR IN LAW AND IN BOTH. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMI NG THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,72,242/ - AS PEAK CREDIT OF DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNTS. 3. THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE SUM OF RS. 13,50,000/ - BEING THE SALE OF PROPERTY AT THORLIKONDA VILLAGE AS SOURCE FOR CREDIT S IN BANK ACCOUNTS. 4. THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE ADMITTED BUSINESS TURNOVER AS SOURCE FOR CREDITS IN BANK ACCOUNTS. I.T.A. NO. 1722 /HYD/1 8 SATYAPAL REDDY GADDAM, NIZAMABAD 4 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 7. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD . WE NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE FILED RELEVANT INFORMATION BEFORE CIT(A) AND AO IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND REMAND REPORT FROM AO, LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,72,242/ - . ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY NEW MATERIAL BEFORE US TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RECORD, WE ARE INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSE ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH SEPTEMBER , 2019. SD/ - ( P. MADHAVI DEVI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - ( S. RIFAUR RAHMAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 5 TH SEPTEMBER , 201 9. KV COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SATYAPAL REDDY GADDAM, C/O K. PARTHASARATHY & CO., ADVOCATE & TAX CONSULTANT, 1 ST FLOOR, SOWBHAGYA AVENUE, STREET 1, ASHOK NAGAR, HYDERABAD 500 020. 2 . ITO, WARD NO. 3 , AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SUBHASH NAGAR, HYDERABAD . 3 . CIT (A) - 5 , HYDERABAD 4. PR. CIT - 5 , HYDERABAD 5. THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6. GUARD FILE