Chaya Devi Velaga, Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Hyderabad

ITA 174/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2646 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-10-2018
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D J P ANAND
• Assessee Lawyers: MD AFZAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard; Source of fund
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 174/HYD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 CHAYA DEVI VELAGA, HYDERABAD [PAN: AFEPV9765N] VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI MD. AFZAL, AR FOR REVENUE : SHRI D.J.P. ANAND, DR DATE OF HEARING : 15-10-2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09-11-2018 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M. : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)6, HYDERABAD, DATED 17-11-2017, FOR THE AY. 2009-10. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED H ER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY. 2009-10 ON 24-03-2010, D ECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 7,61,990/-. THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT [ACT], WHICH WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 28-09-201 0. DURING THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSING OFFICER NO TICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSITS INTO HER BANK ACC OUNT ITA NO. 174/HYD/2018 :- 2 -: TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 2,50,000/-, SAID TO HAVE RECEIVED FROM MR. RAMA KRISHNA AND THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED INTO BANK RS. 2,00,000/- ON 08-04-2008 AND RS. 50,000/- ON 02-08- 2008. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD THE IDENTIT Y, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PERSON, FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE ABOVE LOAN, ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION WAS MADE. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ABOVE ORDER, ASSESSEE P REFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE TH AT THE CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH IS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT THE SAME IS HELD IN THE NAME OF THE COMPANY I.E., M/S. DESTINY OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., CHANDIG ARH. AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE SAME, LD.CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE CORRECT. ACCORDINGLY, HE DELETED THE ABOVE SAID ADDITION. HOWEVER, HE NOTICED TH AT THERE ARE CERTAIN CASH DEPOSITS IN THE PERSONAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE I.E., RS. 1,00,000/- CASH DEPOSITED ON 09-0 4-2008 AND RS. 10,090/- ON 08-04-2008. LD.CIT(A) AFTER GIV ING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ASSESSEE, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,10,090/-. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ABOVE ORDER, A SSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE US, RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) IS AGAINST LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE AND PROBABILITIES OF THE CASE. ITA NO. 174/HYD/2018 :- 3 -: 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.1,10,090/- WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN EX AMINED AND ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER ERRED IN STATING THAT H E IS INCLINED TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TH E EXTENT OF RS.1,10,090/- IN PLACE OF RS.2,50,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS BOTH ARE INDEPENDENT TRANSACTIONS. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIAT ED THAT THE CASH BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE A SSESSING OFFICER AND HE HAS ACCEPTED THE SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSITS IN RESPECT OF ALL THE ENTRIES, AFTER MAKING PROPER ENQUIRIES. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONERS ACTION OF MAKING ADDI TION OF RS. 1,10,090/- IS BEYOND THE POWERS OF APPELLATE COMMIS SIONER AS PROVIDED U/S. 251 OF THE IT ACT, AS THE TRANSACTION WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE, WHICH IS NOT S UBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, AMEND OR M ODIFY THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIM E OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, IF IT IS CONSIDERED NECESSARY. 4. LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND TH AT ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, WHICH WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE NAME OF THE COMPANY A ND LD.CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE SAME. AT THE SAME TIME , LD.CIT(A) FOUND NEW CASH DEPOSITS IN THE PERSONAL ACC OUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO HIM, THESE TWO TRANSACTIONS A RE INDEPENDENT. LD.CIT(A) CANNOT ADD OR ENHANCE ANYTHING WHICH IS NOT BEFORE HIM. IN THAT PROCESS, HE RELIED ON THE F OLLOWING CASE LAW: I. HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. S HRI B.P. SHERAFUDDIN, HOTEL GAZALA INN IN ITA NO. 881 OF 2009; ITA NO. 174/HYD/2018 :- 4 -: II. HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. U NION TYRES [240 ITR 556] (DELHI); III. HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI (FB) CIT VS. SARDARILAL & CO., [251 ITR 864]; AND RAISED THE QUERY THAT WHETHER IT IS WITHIN THE POWERS OF THE LD.CIT(A) TO ENHANCE SOMETHING WHICH IS FRESH FIND ING OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND THE TRANSACTION IS INDEPENDENT IN NATUR E. HE SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE THE ADDITION ON FRESH FINDING S EMANATING FROM HIM. 5. LD.DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIE S AND SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT ENHANCEMENT, BUT THE FINDINGS A RE WITHIN THE SAME SOURCE I.E., CASH DEPOSITS, SO THERE I S NO FRESH FINDING OR INDEPENDENT TRANSACTION. 6. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING TWO SEPARATE ACCOUNTS ONE IN THE NAME OF THE COMPANY AND ANOTHER I S PERSONAL A/C (SAVINGS BANK A/C). ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT SOME CASH DEPOSITS IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE COMPANY WH ICH WAS HELD IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. LD.CIT(A) ACCOR DINGLY FOUND THIS TO BE PROPER AND ACCORDINGLY DELETED. HOWE VER, LD.CIT(A) NOTICED THE OTHER TWO CASH DEPOSITS IN THE P ERSONAL SAVINGS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, ACCORDINGLY, HE MADE THE ADDITION. THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS ONLY WHETHER THE AD DITIONS MADE BY LD.CIT(A) ARE OF THE TRANSACTIONS INDEPENDENT IN ITA NO. 174/HYD/2018 :- 5 -: NATURE OR WHETHER THEY ARE THE SAME TRANSACTIONS ON WHICH ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION. LD.AR RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS, WHICH ARE EXTRACTED BELOW: 6.1. HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHRI B.P. SHERAFUDDIN, HOTEL GAZALA INN IN ITA NO. 881 OF 2009; 48. THE PRINCIPLE EMERGING FROM VARIOUS PRONOUNCEM ENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT, UNION TYRES OBSERVES, IS THAT THE FI RST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS INVESTED WITH VERY WIDE POWERS UNDER S ECTION 251(1)(A) OF THE ACT AND ONCE AN ASSESSMENT ORDER IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE AUTHORITY, HIS COMPETENCE IS NOT RESTRICTED TO EXAM INING ONLY THOSE ASPECTS OF THE ASSESSMENT ABOUT WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAKES A GRIEVANCE AND RANGES OVER THE WHOLE ASSESSMENT TO C ORRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT ONLY REGARDING A MATTER RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL BUT ALSO REGARDING ANY OTHER MATTER CONSI DERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DETERMINED IN ASSESSMENT. 49. THERE IS A SOLITARY BUT SIGNIFICANT LIMITATION, ACCORDING TO UNION TYRES, TO THE POWER OF REVISION: IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER TO INTRODUCE IN THE ASSESSMENT A NEW S OURCE OF INCOME AND THE ASSESSMENT MUST BE CONFINED TO THOSE ITEMS OF INCOME WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. 50. IN COURSE OF TIME, UNION TYRES WAS DOUBTED. IN CIT V. SARDARI LAL & CO. THE SAME ISSUE-WHETHER THE APPELLATE AUTHORIT Y HAS THE POWER UNDER SECTION 251 TO DISCOVER A NEW SOURCE OF INCOM E-WAS REFERRED TO A FULL BENCH. AFTER EXAMINING, THE AUTHORITIES HOLD ING THE FIELDING ON THAT ISSUE, THE LEARNED FULL BENCH HAS HELD THAT TH E INEVITABLE CONCLUSION IS THAT WHENEVER THE QUESTION OF TAXABIL ITY OF INCOME FROM A NEW SOURCE OF INCOME IS CONCERNED, WHICH HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE JURISDICTION TO DEAL WITH THE SAME IN APPROPRIATE CASES MAY BE DEALT WITH UNDER SECTION 1 47, OR SECTION 148, OR EVEN SECTION 263 OF THE ACT IF REQUISITE CO NDITIONS ARE FULFILLED. IT IS INCONCEIVABLE, ACCORDING TO SARDARI LAL, THAT IN THE PRESENCE OF SUCH SPECIFIC PROVISIONS, A SIMILAR POWER IS AVAILA BLE TO THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. EVENTUALLY, SARDARI LAL UPHELD THE DECISION IN UNION TYRES. 51. UNDENIABLY, THE PRECEDENTIAL POSITION ON THE PO WERS OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 251 UNDULATES. TH ERE ARE SEEMING ITA NO. 174/HYD/2018 :- 6 -: CONTRADICTIONS. BUT, AS HELD BY UNION TYRES, AND AS AFFIRMED ON REFERENCE BY SARDARI LAL, THERE IS A CONSISTENT JUD ICIAL ASSERTION THAT THE POWERS UNDER SECTION 251 ARE, INDEED, VERY WIDE ; BUT, WIDE AS THEY ARE, THEY DO NOT GO TO THE EXTENT OF DISPLACIN G POWERS UNDER, SAY, SECTIONS 147, 148, AND 263 OF THE ACT. 52. THEREFORE, WE ARE IN RESPECTFUL AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE FULL BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN SARDAR I LAL. AS A COROLLARY, WE HOLD THAT THE TRIBUNAL'S DELETING THE ENHANCEMENT OF RS. 22,15,116/- AND CANCELING THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) ON THAT ISSUE CALL FOR NO INTERFERENCE. 6.2. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF C IT VS. UNION TYRES [240 ITR 556] (DELHI) HAS HELD AS UNDER : THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS INVESTED WITH VER Y WIDE POWERS UNDER S. 251(1)(A) AND ONCE AN ASSESSMENT ORDER IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE AUTHORITY, HIS COMPETENCE IS NOT RESTRICTED TO EXAMINING ONLY THOSE ASPECTS OF THE ASSESSMENT ABOUT WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAKES A GRIEVANCE AND RANGES OVER THE WHOLE ASSESSMENT TO C ORRECT THE AO NOT ONLY WITH REGARD TO A MATTER RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN APPEAL BUT ALSO WITH REGARD TO ANY OTHER MATTER WHICH HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO AND DETERMINED IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT. HOWEVER, THERE IS A SOLITARY BUT SIGNIFICANT LIMITATION TO THE POW ER OF REVISION, VIZ. THAT IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE AAC TO INTRODUCE IN THE ASSES SMENT A NEW SOURCE OF INCOME AND THE ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE CONFINED TO THOSE ITEMS OF INCOME WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF ORIGINAL AS SESSMENT. APPLYING THE ABOVE WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW T O THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT IN CALLING FOR A REMAND REPORT ON THE FOUR POINTS THE AAC HAD EXCEED ED HIS JURISDICTION. WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL BUSINESS IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AO HAD ESTIMATED THE SALES AT AN ENHA NCED FIGURE AND HAD APPLIED A HIGHER RATE OF GROSS PROFIT. THUS, TH E ONLY MATTER DEALT WITH BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS THE ESTI MATION OF PROFITS AND GAIN OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. NONE OF T HE FOUR POINTS RAISED IN REMAND REPORT HAD ANY BEARING ON THE QUES TION OF ESTIMATION OF EITHER THE SALES OR THE GROSS PROFIT RATE. IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE AAC HAD HIS DOUBTS ABOUT THE CAPACITY OF THE AS SESSEE TO RAISE FINANCES FOR THE PURCHASE OF GOODS AND SHOW A HUGE TURNOVER IN THE VERY FIRST YEAR OF HIS BUSINESS. IN OTHER WORDS, TH E ENQUIRY ORDERED BY THE AAC WAS TO SATISFY HIMSELF ABOUT THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS AXIOMATIC THAT FAILURE TO PROVE THE SOURCES OF INVESTMENT WILL RESULT IN ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER ITA NO. 174/HYD/2018 :- 7 -: A DIFFERENT PROVISION OF LAW AND WILL NOT HAVE MUCH RELEVANCE IN THE ESTIMATION OF SALES AND GROSS PROFIT RATE ADOPTED B Y THE AO. ANY ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT WOULD CONSTITUTE A NEW SOURCE OF INCOME WHICH WAS NOT THE SUBJECT-MATT ER OF ASSESSMENT BEFORE THE AO AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT OPEN TO THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO DIRECT THE AO TO CONDUCT ENQ UIRY ON THE SAID FOUR POINTS.CIT VS. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY (196 2) 44 ITR 891 (SC) : TC 7R.576 AND CIT VS. RAI BAHADUR HARDUTROY MOTILAL CHAMARIA (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC) : TC 7R.590 APPLIED. 6.3. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SARDARILAL & CO., [251 I TR 864], THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI (FB) HAS HELD AS UNDER: THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ON AN APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSED, HAD JURISDICTION TO INVOKE, FOR THE F IRST TIME, THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 33 OF THE INDIAN INCOME TAX RULE S, 1922 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE RULES'), FOR THE P URPOSE OF COMPUTING THE INCOME OF A NON-RESIDENT EVEN IF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER HAD NOT DONE SO IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. BUT, IN SHAP OORJI PALLONJI MISTRY'S CASE [SUPRA), THIS COURT, WHILE CONSIDERIN G THE EXTENT OF THE POWER OF THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, REFE RRED TO A NUMBER OF CASES DECIDED BY VARIOUS HIGH COURTS INCLUDING T HE BOMBAY HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN NARRONDAS' CASE (SUPRA) AND ALSO THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN MCMILLAN AND CO.'S CASE (SUPRA) AND H ELD THAT, IN AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSED, THE APPELLATE ASSISTA NT COMMISSIONER HAS NO POWER TO ENHANCE THE ASSESSMENT BY DISCOVERI NG NEW SOURCES OF INCOME NOT CONSIDERED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IN THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST. IT WAS URGED ON BEHALF OF THE 7 R EVENUE THAT THE WORDS 'ENHANCE THE ASSESSMENT' OCCURRING IN SECTION 31 WERE NOT CONFINED TO THE ASSESSMENT REACHED THROUGH A PARTIC ULAR PROCESS BUT THE AMOUNT WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN COMPUTED IF THE TRUE TOTAL INCOME HAD BEEN FOUND. THE COURT OBSERVED THAT THER E WAS NO DOUBT THAT THIS VIEW WAS ALSO POSSIBLE) BUT HAVING REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 34 AND 33B, WHICH MADE PROVISION FOR AS SESSMENT OF ESCAPED INCOME FROM NEW SOURCES, THE INTERPRETATION SUGGESTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE WOULD BE AGAINST THE VIEW WHI CH HAD HELD THE FIELD FOR NEARLY 37 YEARS. (EMPHASIS, HERE ITALICI SED IN PRINT, SUPPLIED). 4. LOOKING FROM THE AFORESAID ANGLES, THE INEVITABL E CONCLUSION IS THAT WHENEVER THE QUESTION OF TAXABILITY OF INCOME FROM A NEW SOURCE OF INCOME IS CONCERNED, WHICH HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE JURISDICTION TO DEAL WITH TH E SAME IN APPROPRIATE ITA NO. 174/HYD/2018 :- 8 -: CASES MAY BE DEALT WITH UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF TH E ACT AND SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, IF REQUISITE CONDITIONS ARE FULFILLED. IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT IN THE PRESENCE OF SUCH SPECIFIC PROVISIONS, A SIMILAR POWER IS AVAILABLE TO THE FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY. THAT BEING THE POSITION, THE DECISION IN UNION TYRES' CASE (SU PRA) OF THIS COURT EXPRESSES THE CORRECT VIEW AND DOES NOT NEED RECONS IDERATION. THIS REFERENCE IS ACCORDINGLY DISPOSED OF. 4. LOOKING FROM THE AFORESAID ANGLES, THE INEVITABL E CONCLUSION IS THAT WHENEVER THE QUESTION OF TAXABILITY OF INCOME FROM A NEW SOURCE OF INCOME IS CONCERNED, WHICH HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE JURISDICTION TO DEAL WITH TH E SAME IN APPROPRIATE CASES MAY BE DEALT WITH UNDERSECTION 147/148 OF THE ACT AND SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, IF REQUISITE CONDITIONS ARE FULFILL ED. IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT IN THE PRESENCE OF SUCH SPECIFIC PROVISIONS, A SIMILAR POWER IS AVAILABLE TO THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THAT BE ING THE POSITION, THE DECISION IN UNION TYRES' CASE (SUPRA) OF THIS COURT EXPRESSES THE CORRECT VIEW AND DOES NOT NEED RECONSIDERATION. THI S REFERENCE IS ACCORDINGLY DISPOSED OF. 7. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD. BY REFERRING TO THE ABOVE RATIOS, WE RESPECTFULLY AGRE E WITH THE FINDINGS OF RESPECTIVE COURTS THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AU THORITY HAS WIDE POWERS BUT HE CANNOT MAKE ADDITION ON THE INDEPENDENT SOURCE OF INCOME, WHEN THE SAME INDEPENDE NT SOURCE OF INCOME CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE AO BY INV OKING THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT LIKE SECTIONS 147/148 OR 263. WE CAREFULLY ANALYSED THE FACTS BEFORE US. ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BAN K ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY ASSESSEE. BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS TW O BANK ACCOUNTS, ONE IN THE NAME OF COMPANY AND ANOTHER IN HER PERSONAL NAME. ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THE CA SH DEPOSITS IN THE ACCOUNT MAINTAINED ON BEHALF OF THE COM PANY AND FAILED TO NOTICE THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE PERSONAL ACCOUNT. BUT ACCORDING TO AR, THIS WAS DISCLOSED BEFORE THE ASS ESSING ITA NO. 174/HYD/2018 :- 9 -: OFFICER AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED IT AFTER VERIFICATION. WE OBSERVE, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISCUSSED ANYTH ING IN HIS ORDER ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF SECOND ACCOUNT IN ICI CI BANK. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS VERIFIED ONLY TWO BANK ACCOUN TS VIZ., KARUR VYSYA BANK AND ICICI BANK. THERE WAS NO DISCU SSION ABOUT SECOND ACCOUNT WITH ICICI BANK. IN OUR VIEW, THE SECOND ACCOUNT WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER. HOWEVER, THIS IS IRRELEVANT AT THIS POINT OF TIME. WHETHER THIS TRANSACTION IS INDEPENDENT OR SAME TRANSACTION OF DEPOS ITS IN BANK ACCOUNT. IN OUR VIEW, IT IS ONE TRANSACTION. THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH BELONGS TO THE COMPANY ACCOUN T IRRELEVANT TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THE DEPOSITS IN THE PERSO NAL ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE IS RELEVANT FOR THIS ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER INTENDED TO MAKE ADDITION IN HER PER SONAL BANK ACCOUNT AND THE SAME WAS MADE BY THE LD.CIT(A). THEREFORE, THIS ADDITION IS NOTHING BUT COMING OUT OF SA ME ADDITION AND NOT INDEPENDENT. THEREFORE, THE GROUND R AISED BY ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH NOVEMBER, 2018 SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIF AUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT M EMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 9 TH NOVEMBER, 2018 TNMM ITA NO. 174/HYD/2018 :- 10 -: COPY TO : 1. CHAYA DEVI VELAGA, C/O. MOHD. AFZAL, ADVOATE, 11-5-465, FLAT NO. 402, SHERSONS RESIDENCY, CRIMIN AL COURT ROAD, RED HILLS, HYDERABAD. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(APPEALS)-6, HYDERABAD. 4. PR.CIT-6, HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.