P Anasuya, Hyderabad V. ITO., Ward-12(4), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 1750/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2327 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 17-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Wrong claim
• Section: 80C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A (SMC), HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT I.T.A. NO. 1750/HYD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SMT. P. ANASUYA, HYDERABAD [PAN: AIBPP7018C] VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(4), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI A.V. RAGHU RAM, AR FOR REVENUE : SHRI G.S.S.S. GOPINATH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 22-06-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26-07-2017 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I I, HYDERABAD AND IT PERTAINS TO THE AY. 2010-11. THE ASSESSEE IS A DIRECTOR IN M/S. DECCAN SMITHS PVT. LTD. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION, SHE DECLARED TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 6,77,920/-. THE CAS E HAVING BEEN SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) CA LLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH CERTAIN INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN HER SAVINGS BANK A/C AND ALSO WITH REGARD TO CERTAIN OTHER CLAIMS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. AS REGARD S THE DEPOSITS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 27,65,000/-, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS OUT OF ADVANCES RECEIVED FOR SALE OF PROPERTY AND RE MUNERATION OF CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR AS WELL AS OUTSTANDING REMUNERA TION OF EARLIER YEARS. DETAILED RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS STATEMEN T WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO. I.T.A. NO. 1750/HYD/2014 SMT. P. ANASUYA :- 2 - : 2. ON AN ANALYSIS OF THE EXPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE CLAIM OF ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM SAL E OF PROPERTY AS WELL AS REMUNERATION PERTAINING TO THE EAR LIER YEARS AND CURRENT YEAR IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. HE OBSERVED THAT A S PER THE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT OF SALE DT.25-09-2009, THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RS. 42.15 LAKHS BUT THE SAME WAS NOT REGISTERED EV EN AFTER LAPSE OF MORE THAN THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SO CAL LED AGREEMENT. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT ORDINARILY NO REASONA BLE PERSON WILL WAIT FOR SUCH A LONG TIME WITHOUT PROPER REGISTRATI ON OF AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. 3. WITH REGARD TO THE REMUNERATION OUTSTANDING FROM M/S. DECCAN SMITHS PVT. LTD., THE AO TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE CER TIFICATE DT. 25-03-2013 ON THE LETTER HEAD OF M/S. DECCAN SMITH S PVT. LTD., WHICH SIMPLY STATES THAT THERE IS AN OUTSTANDING REMUNERA TION OF RS. 26,35,000/- AS ON 01-04-2009, OUT OF WHICH RS. 7 LAKHS HAS BEEN REPAID IN THIS YEAR. HOWEVER, THE MODE OF PAYM ENT AND THE PERIOD TO WHICH IT RELATES WAS NOT FURNISHED. IT IS A LSO NOT KNOWN AS TO WHY A LIMITED COMPANY PAYS HUGE AMOUNTS IN CASH INSTEAD OF PAYING THROUGH CHEQUE/DRAFT/ACCOUNT TRANSFER. 4. THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE W AS FORTHCOMING WITH REGARD TO THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS A ND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PERSON WITH WHOM THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT OF SALE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE SOURCE FOR THE CASH DEPOSIT WAS DOUB TED BY THE AO AND ACCORDINGLY, ADDED A SUM OF RS. 27,65,000/-. I.T.A. NO. 1750/HYD/2014 SMT. P. ANASUYA :- 3 - : 5. AS PER THE AIR INFORMATION, THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED CERTAIN SHARES/SECURITIES AND EARNED PROFIT OF RS. 5,40,919/- , BUT THE SAID PROFIT WAS NOT ADMITTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. WHEN TH E SAME WAS POINTED OUT, THE ASSESSEE AGREED FOR THE INCLUSION OF THE SAID INCOME AND ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME WAS ADDED TO THE INC OME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY, PENALTY PAID TO GHMC WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION BUT WHEN THE SAME WAS POINTED OUT, THE ASSESSEE, VIDE LETTER DT. 25-03-2013, AGREED FOR THE ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE. 6. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS. 78,398/- U/ S. 80C OF THE ACT BUT FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY PROOF IN SUPPORT OF HE R CLAIM. THOUGH LIC PREMIA PAID RECEIPTS WERE FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE THEY WERE NOT PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION AND HENCE, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80C WAS REJECTE D BY THE AO. THUS, ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON A TOTAL INCOME O F RS. 40,72,240/-. 7. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDER PASS ED BY THE AO ONLY WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF CASH DEPOSITS AN D DISALLOWANCE U/S. 80C OF THE ACT. IT WAS CONTENDED BEF ORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE CASH DEPOSITS INTO SAVI NGS BANK A/C WITH ING VYSYA BANK FROM TIME TO TIME I.E., FROM 22-06 -2009 TO 05-02-2010 AND THE SOURCE OF SUCH DEPOSITS WAS AMOUNTS RECEIVED ON SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY (RS. 18,50,000/-), RE MUNERATION RECEIVED FROM M/S. DECCAN SMITHS PVT. LTD., (RS. 9,26, 350/-). IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT O F SALE IN FAVOUR OF SHRI K. RAJI REDDY, AGRICULTURIST FOR SELL ING A COMMERCIAL PLACE IN BHUVANA TOWERS, S.D. ROAD, SECUNDERABAD. T HE I.T.A. NO. 1750/HYD/2014 SMT. P. ANASUYA :- 4 - : AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 42,15,0 00/-, OUT OF WHICH A SUM OF RS. 4 LAKHS WAS PAID AS AN ADVANC E AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 38,15,000/- WAS TO BE PAID WITH IN NINE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF AGREEMENT I.E., BEFORE MARCH 2010 AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED ADVANCE CONSIDERA TION ON THE SALE ON THE FOLLOWING DATES: DATE AMOUNT (RS) 27-06-2009 3,80,000 29-06-2009 20,000 16-07-2009 4,00,000 25-09-2009 3,50,000 12-02-2009 4,00,000 12-05-2009 3,00,000 TOTAL: 18,50,000 IT DESERVES TO BE NOTICED THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS INTO SAVI NGS BANK A/C BEGINS FROM 22-06-2009 (RS. 4 LAKHS). IT WAS CO NTENDED THAT THE PURCHASER DID NOT MAKE FULL PAYMENT WITHIN A PERIOD OF NINE MONTHS I.E., BEFORE MARCH, 2010 AND THEREAFTER, THE A MOUNTS WERE RETURNED TO THE PURCHASER. SINCE THE TRANSACTION DID NOT G O THROUGH, SALE AGREEMENT WAS NOT REGISTERED. 8. LD.CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE REASONS FOR ENTERING I NTO A TRANSACTION IN CASH I.E., RECEIPT IN CASH AS WELL AS R EFUND IN CASH IS NOT EXPLAINED AND IF AT ALL THE ASSESSEE AGREED TO WAIT FOR NINE MONTHS I.E., TILL THE END OF MARCH, 2010, IT IS NOT KNO WN AS TO WHAT COMPELLED THE ASSESSEE TO RETURN THE AMOUNTS MUCH PRIOR TO THE SAID DATE THAT TOO IN CASH AS UNDER: I.T.A. NO. 1750/HYD/2014 SMT. P. ANASUYA :- 5 - : DATE AMOUNT (RS) 21-12-2009 1,00,000 02-01-2010 1,86,000 05-01-2010 25,000 18-01-2010 1,20,000 TOTAL: 4,31,000 DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO CALLED UPON TO SUBMIT THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI K. RAJI REDDY TO VERIFY WHETHER HE HAD SUFFICIENT MEANS TO MAKE THE PAYM ENT. HOWEVER, NO SUCH STATEMENT WAS FURNISHED. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS OF RS. 18,50,000 /- WAS REJECTED BY THE LD.CIT(A). 9. AS REGARDS THE BALANCE AMOUNT, THE ASSESSEES CONTEN TION WAS THAT OUTSTANDING REMUNERATION FROM M/S. DECCAN SMITH S PVT. LTD., WAS RECEIVED IN THIS YEAR. HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO EXPLANATION AS TO WHETHER THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNTS PERTAIN TO THE IMMEDIA TELY PRECEDING YEAR OR NOT. IN FACT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT S UBMIT THE ACCOUNT COPY OF THE STATEMENT IN THE BOOKS OF M/S. DECC AN SMITHS PVT. LTD. MOREOVER, THERE WERE NO COMPELLING REASONS TO MAKE THE PAYMENT TO DIRECTOR IN CASH. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED BY THE LD.CIT( A). 10. AS REGARDS THE DENIAL OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80C OF THE ACT, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED CALCULATION SHEET ISSUED BY M/S. DECCAN SMITHS PVT. LTD., WITH REGARD TO THE MONTH-WISE WAGES PAID, EPF ALLOWANCES AND PF CONTRIBUTION ETC., THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THESE AMOUNTS WERE PAID. IN FACT THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE LIC RECEIPTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSE E DO NOT PERTAIN TO THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN THE ABSENCE O F I.T.A. NO. 1750/HYD/2014 SMT. P. ANASUYA :- 6 - : PRODUCTION OF LIC RECEIPTS OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE IN THA T CONNECTION, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT (A). 11. FURTHER AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL. 12. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT GRO UND NOS. 1, 4 AND 5 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE, THE PLEADINGS ARE ONLY IN CONNECTION WITH GROUND NOS. 2 & 3. VIDE GROUND NO. 2, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THE TAX AUTHORITIES ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS AS UN EXPLAINED CASH CREDITS AND VIDE GROUND NO. 3, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S. 80C IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 13. AS REGARDS THE FIRST ISSUE, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE E IS THAT PRIOR TO DEMONETIZATION, IT IS USUAL PRACTICE OF COLLECTI NG ADVANCE AMOUNT IN CASH TILL A SALE DEED IS ENTERED INTO. IN TH E INSTANT CASE, THE SALE OF COMMERCIAL PLACE IN BHUVANA TOWERS, S.D. ROAD, SECUNDERABAD COULD NOT TAKE PLACE SINCE THE INTENDING PURCHASER COULD NOT MAKE THE PAYMENT ON TIME AND THEREFORE, THE AD VANCES RECEIVED WERE RETURNED TO THE PURCHASER; SINCE AMOUNT WAS COLLECTED IN CASH, THE MONEY WAS ALSO RETURNED IN CAS H ONLY. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT SHRI K. RAJI REDDY, THE INTENDING BU YER DID NOT WANT TO COME FORWARD TO CO-OPERATE WITH THE ASSESSEE BE FORE THE TAX AUTHORITIES SINCE THE SALE DID NOT TAKE PLACE. THUS, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PLACE ANY MATERIAL TO SUPPORT HER STAND THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE ADVANCED BY SHRI K. RAJI REDDY. NOW, S HRI K. RAJI REDDY IS PREPARED TO FURNISH RELEVANT MATERIAL AND SOU RCE FOR ADVANCING THE AMOUNT AND HENCE THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI K. RAJI REDDY I.T.A. NO. 1750/HYD/2014 SMT. P. ANASUYA :- 7 - : WAS REQUESTED TO BE TAKEN ON RECORD UNDER RULE 29 OF THE ITAT RULES SO AS TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE ONE MORE O PPORTUNITY TO PROVE ITS CASE THAT ADVANCE OF RS. 18,50,000/- WAS A CTUALLY RECEIVED FROM SHRI K. RAJI REDDY. THE AFFIDAVIT OF S HRI K. RAJI REDDY STATES THAT AN AGREEMENT OF SALE WAS ENTERED INTO WITH SM T. P. ANASUYA, BY GIVING AN ADVANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 4 LAKHS. THE BALANCE WAS PAYABLE IN NINE MONTHLY INSTALMENTS BEFORE THE DATE OF REGISTRATION. ACCORDINGLY, HE STATED TO HAVE PAID A SU M OF RS. 18,50,000/- ON VARIOUS DATES. LATER ON IN THE MONTH O F NOVEMBER, 2009, HE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS HAD SECOND THOUGHTS ABOUT GOING AHEAD WITH PURCHASE OF FLAT AND REQUESTED SMT. ANASUYA TO CANCEL THE AGREEMENT WHICH WAS ACCEDED TO. PG. 20 TO 24 OF THE PAPER BOOK REFERS TO THE AGREEMENT OF SALE CUM CASH RECEIPT, WHEREIN THE AMOUNT ADVANCED BY SHRI K. RAJI REDDY WAS REFERRED TO . FROM PAGE NO. 25 ONWARDS REFERS TO THE RECEIPTS DULY SIGNED BY SHRI K. RAJI REDDY IN PROOF OF REFUND OF ADVANCE BY ASSESSE E. IT DESERVES TO BE NOTICED FROM THE RECEIPTS, DULY SIGNED BY SHRI K . RAJI REDDY, THAT ADDRESS OF SHRI K. RAJI REDDY WAS REFERRED TO AS RAMPALLY, KEESARA MANDAL, WHEREAS IN THE AFFIDAVIT FILED IN THE FORM OF FRESH EVIDENCE, RESIDENCE OF SHRI RAJI REDDY WAS SHOWN AS KARIMGUDA VILLAGE AND ONLY THE LEFT HAND THUMB IMPRESSION OF SH RI K. RAJI REDDY WAS AFFIXED INDICATING THAT HE CANNOT SIGN; IN THE SECOND PAGE OF THE AFFIDAVIT IT WAS STATED THAT SWORN AND SIGNED BEFORE ME BUT THERE WAS NO SIGNATURE OF THE PERSON BEFORE WHOM THE AFFIDAVIT/LEFT HAND THUMB IMPRESSION WAS TAKEN. THOUG H IT WAS NOTARIZED BUT THE NOTARY MERELY STATES THAT IT WAS ATTESTED B EFORE HIM. I.T.A. NO. 1750/HYD/2014 SMT. P. ANASUYA :- 8 - : 14. SIMILARLY, WITH REGARD TO THE SALARY RECEIVABLE FR OM THE COMPANY, THE LD. COUNSEL REFERRED TO PAGE NO. 48 OF TH E PAPER BOOK, WHEREIN THE COMPANY MERELY STATED THAT OUTSTANDING REMUNERATION OF RS. 9,26,350/- IS PAYABLE TO SMT. ANAS UYA AS ON 1 ST APRIL, 2009 AND OUT OF THE ABOVE AMOUNT, RS. 7 LAKHS HAS BEEN REPAID DURING THE FY. 2009-10. LD. COUNSEL ALSO REF ERRED TO PAGE NO. 49 OF THE PAPER BOOK TO SHOW THAT IN THE COMPANYS R ECORDS, IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE IN THE FOR M OF DIRECTORS REMUNERATION. THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT B E DOUBTED. 15. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT COME OUT WITH CLEAN HANDS EVEN BEFORE THE AO AND HENCE HE SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN FURTHER OPPORTUNITY AT THIS JUNCTURE. IN SUPPORT THEREOF, LD.DR REFERRED TO PAGE NO. 4 OF THE A SSESSMENT ORDER WHICH INDICATES THAT THE ASSESSEE OMITTED TO DECLA RE A PROFIT OF RS. 5,40,919/- FROM TRADE OF SHARES/SECURITIES AND IT WAS ONLY UPON POINTING OUT THE SAME BY THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS, THE INCOME WAS ADMITTED. SIMILA RLY, WRONG CLAIM OF MUNICIPAL TAXES WAS ALSO ADMITTED ONLY WHEN I T WAS POINTED OUT. THIS APART THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN SUFFICI ENT OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THE AO ON NUMBER OF OCCASIONS. BU T NO EVIDENCE WHAT-SO-EVER COULD BE PLACED TO INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE INTENDED TO SELL THE PROPERTY AND RECEIVED ADVANCE FRO M SHRI K. RAJI REDDY. HE ALSO REFERRED TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE R ETURNED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 4,31,000/- UPTO 18-01-2010 IN CASH; THE REFUND WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM 21-12-2009 ONWARDS. IN FACT THE INTENDING PURCHASER HAD NINE MONTHS TIME TO TAKE A DECISION. EVEN THE AGREEMENT WAS NOT REGISTERED AND THU S THERE IS I.T.A. NO. 1750/HYD/2014 SMT. P. ANASUYA :- 9 - : NO OTHER EVIDENCE TO VERIFY THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS. H E THUS STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES. 16. SIMILARLY, WITH REGARD TO REMUNERATION RECEIVABLE FROM M/S. DECCAN SMITHS PVT. LTD., THOUGH THE ASSESSEE IS A DIRE CTOR, NO EVIDENCE WAS FORTHCOMING TILL DATE AS TO THE PERIOD TO W HICH THE ARREARS RELATE TO. HE THEREFORE REQUESTED THAT THE ADDITI ON MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE CONF IRMED. 17. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION S AND PERUSED THE RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT FURNISHED ANY SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT SHE HAS ENTERED IN TO AGREEMENT OF SALE AND RECEIVED ADVANCES FROM SHRI K. RAJI REDDY. LD.CIT(A) ALSO HIGHLIGHTED THE FALLACY IN THE STATEMEN T OF THE ASSESSEE BY STATING THAT THE AGREEMENT, IF ANY, WAS ENTE RED INTO IN JUNE, 2009 WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SALE CONSIDER ATION WOULD BE PAID IN NINE MONTHLY INSTALMENTS, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE REFUNDED PART OF THE AMOUNT IN THIS YEA R BEGINNING FROM 21-12-2009 I.E., WITHIN FIVE MONTHS FROM THE DAT E OF AGREEMENT. THE AGREEMENT WAS NOT EVEN REGISTERED. EV EN THE ADDRESS OF SHRI K. RAJI REDDY APPEARS TO BE VARYING BETWEEN THE RECEIPTS OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE AFFIDAVI T GIVEN BY SHRI K. RAJI REDDY. IN THE RECEIPTS OBTAINED FROM SHRI K. RAJI REDDY, HE WAS STATED TO BE RESIDENT OF RAMPALLY, KEESARA MANDAL, WHEREAS IN THE AFFIDAVIT HE WAS SHOWN AS RESIDENT OF KARIMGUDA VI LLAGE, KEESARA MANDAL. SIMILARLY, RECEIPTS CONTAINED THE SIG NATURE OF SHRI K. RAJI REDDY, WHEREAS ONLY LEFT HAND THUMB IMP RESSION WAS AFFIXED IN THE AFFIDAVIT. AT ANY RATE NO OTHER DOCUME NT WAS FURNISHED IN SUPPORT OF THE PLEA THAT SHRI K. RAJI REDD Y HAS I.T.A. NO. 1750/HYD/2014 SMT. P. ANASUYA :- 10 -: SUFFICIENT MEANS TO ADVANCE THE AMOUNTS TO ASSESSEE. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ALSO DO NOT INDICATE THAT THERE WAS ANY INTENTION TO HAVE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND S HRI K. RAJI REDDY. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT CANNOT BE ADMITTED SINCE THIS ITSELF WOULD NOT BE OF ANY HELP TO CONCLUDE THAT THERE WAS A TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI K. RAJI R EDDY. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE WAKE OF REASONS GIVEN BY THE AO AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO THE NATURE OF ADVANCES RECEIVED, THE DATES FROM WHICH AMOUNTS WERE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN PAID ETC. I AM OF THE OPINION THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR ADMITTING ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCE I.E., ALLEGED AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI K. RAJI REDDY CANNOT BE TAKEN AS AN EVIDENCE. 18. SIMILARLY, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE IS A DIRECTOR IN M /S. DECCAN SMITHS PVT. LTD., THE BASIC DETAILS SUCH AS THE MONTHLY REMUNERATION PAYABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE AMOUNTS DUE FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD WAS NOT FURNISHED BEFORE THE TAX AUTHORI TIES, APART FROM THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN CASH. THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT LEND SUPPORT TO THE PL EA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK IS FROM O UT OF THE SALARY ARREARS RECEIVED FROM M/S. DECCAN SMITHS PVT. LTD. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I HAVE NO HESITATION IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 27,65,000/-. 19. AS REGARDS THE CLAIM U/S. 80C OF THE ACT, RS. 58,0 00/- PERTAINS TO PF DEDUCTED BY THE EMPLOYER AND BALANCE O F RS. 20,398/- REFERS TO LIC PREMIA PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE PLEA THAT THE ASS ESSEE PAID A I.T.A. NO. 1750/HYD/2014 SMT. P. ANASUYA :- 11 -: SUM OF RS. 20,398/-, THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT PF WAS DEDUCTED BY THE EMPLOYER. SECTION 80C OF TH E ACT PERMITS THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION OF ANY CONTRIBU TION MADE BY AN INDIVIDUAL AND THERE APPEARS TO BE NO NEED FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE PF DEDUCTED BY THE EMPLOYER IS DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT. LD.DR DID NOT OBJECT TO THIS ASPECT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF RS . 58,000/- U/S. 80C AND BALANCE DISALLOWANCE IS CONFIRMED. 20. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH JULY, 2017 SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) VICE PRESIDENT HYDERABAD, DATED 26 TH JULY, 2017 TNMM COPY TO : 1. SMT. P. ANASUYA, C/O. A.V. RAGHU RAM, P. VINOD & M. NEELIMA DEVI, ADVOCATES, 610, BABUKHAN ESTATE, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(4), HYDERABAD. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-II, HYDERABA D. 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.