GEDDA APPA RAO, UNDI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHIMAVARAM

ITA 183/VIZ/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Gedda Appa Rao, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the addition of unexplained cash credits amounting to Rs. 29,81,672 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer following a reassessment under section 147, based on information about substantial cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. The assessee claimed that the deposits were from legitimate sources, including his share from the sale of ancestral property and income from aquaculture. However, he failed to provide adequate evidence to support these claims, leading to the dismissal of his appeal by both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 135967 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 05-09-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 18-06-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 68; 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम “एसएमसी”पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री द ु व्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी, न्याधयक सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.183/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) Gedda Appa Rao D.No.2-67, Sitaram Pet Undi [PAN : AXOPG9721M] Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Bhimavaram (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant by : None प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent by : Shri Madhukar Aves, DR सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date of Hearing : 06.09.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 18.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1053170768(1) dated 25.05.2023 arising out of the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) dated 11.12.2017 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.)2013-14. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual has not filed any return of income for A.Y.2013-14. The AO reopened the case u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of information with respect to cash deposit in 2 I.T.A. No.183/Viz/2023,A.Y.2013-14 Gedda Appa Rao, West Godavari his Andhra Bank A/c No.058010027000016. Notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.06.2016. The assessee filed return of income declaring Rs.1,96,280/- as gross total income in response to notice u/s 148 on 28.09.2016. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that there was total cash deposit of Rs.32,12,000/- in assessee’s bank account. When the assessee was asked to explain the sources for the cash deposit, the assessee explained that the assessee received 1/4 th of his share of Rs.2,30,628/- on sale of ancestral property and the balance cash was the income received on sale of fish. Hence, the AO considered Rs.32,12,000-Rs.2,30,628/- = Rs.29,81,672/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act, received as ‘on-money’ on sale of plot and passed order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147 computing total taxable income at Rs.31,77,949/- on 11.12.2017. 3. On being aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in confirming the addition of cash deposits in the Appellant’s bank account made by the Assessing Officer both on facts and in law. 3 I.T.A. No.183/Viz/2023,A.Y.2013-14 Gedda Appa Rao, West Godavari 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) ought to have appreciated that the reassessment proceedings, initiated by the Assessing Officer on the basis of erroneous facts and borrowed satisfaction and without verification are invalid in law. 3. In the facts and circumstance of the case the provision of section 68 of the I.T.Act, 1961 have no application in the absence of books of account maintained by the Appellant and as such the addition under consideration ought to have been deleted. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A) ought not to have confirmed the addition made only on the basis of suspicion and surmises. 5. Without prejudice to the above grounds, alternatively, the addition should have been confined only to the profit element as the deposits in the bank account could at best be taken as only receipts from aquaculture after giving allowance from such deposits towards gross agricultural income and the amounts obtained by the Appellant from the sale of plots during the year. 6. The Appellant craves leave to add to modify or substitute the above grounds of appeal. 5. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. But all the grounds raised by the assessee relate to confirming the additon made u/s 68 of the Act. The assessee contended before the Ld.CIT(A) that the cash deposits were made out of gross sale proceeds from both aqua culture and agriculture and also the gross proceeds from the sale of land besides accumulated saving for the past several years. 6. Ld.DR relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee has not filed any evidence before the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. He, therefore, 4 I.T.A. No.183/Viz/2023,A.Y.2013-14 Gedda Appa Rao, West Godavari pleaded to uphold the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee.. 7. I have heard Ld.DR and perused the material available on record. In the instant case, on the basis of information received, the AO noted that there was cash deposit of Rs.32,12,000/- in assessee’s bank account. The assessee explained before the AO that he received 1/4 th share from sale of ancestral property and received Rs.2,30,628/- which was deposited in his bank account and the balance cash in bank was the income received on sale of fish. Now, the onus is on the assessee to substantiate his claim with proper evidence. However, the assessee has not furnished any details of such accumulated savings deposited in his account either before the lower authorities or before me. Hence, in the absence of any evidence to establish his contention, I have no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and accordingly dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 5 I.T.A. No.183/Viz/2023,A.Y.2013-14 Gedda Appa Rao, West Godavari Order pronounced in the open court on 18 th October, 2023. Sd/- (द ु व्वूरु आर.एल रेड्डी) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 18 .10.2023 L.Rama, SPS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. ननधधाऩरती/ The Assessee – Shri Gedda Appa Rao, D.No.2-67, Sitaram Pet Undi, West Godavari 2. रधजस्व/The Revenue – The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Income Tax Building, P.P.Road, Bhimavaram 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam 4. नवभधगीय प्रनतनननध, आयकर अपीलीय अनधकरण, नवशधखधपटणम / DR,ITAT, Visakhapatnam 5..गधर्ा फ़धईल / Guard file आदेशधनुसधर / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam