Sri Ravindranath Jaladi, Secunderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(3), Hyderabad

ITA 1900/Hyd/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4664 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-09-2021
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M MAHIDHAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Salary income; Source of fund; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1900/HYD/2017 A.Y. 2014 - 15 M/S. SRI RAVINDRANATH JALADI, SECUNDERABAD. PAN: ADKPJ 3857 F VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 15(3), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SRI T. CHAITANYA KUMAR FOR SRI K.A. SAI PRASAD REVENUE BY SRI M. MAHIDHAR, DR DATE OF HEARING: 01/09/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16 /09/2021 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY , A.M: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 7, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO. 471/CIT(A) - 7/2016 - 17, DATED 01/09/2017 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2014 - 15. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SIX GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL AND THEY ARE EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: - 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN PASSING AN ORDER WITHOUT GIVING ANY FURTHER OPPORTUNITY. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 52,74,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS WITHOUT CONSIDERING EVIDENCES SUBMITTED. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED COPIES OF EVIDENCE. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 55,89,740/ - . 6. ANY OTHER GROUND(S) MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HE ARING. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL HAVING SOURCES OF INCOME FROM SALARY, HOUSE PROPERTY, BUSINESS (COMMISSION) AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2014 - 15 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,60,000/ - AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VIA OF THE ACT AT RS. 83,384/ - . THEREAFTER, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS FOR THE REASON THAT CASH WAS DEPOSIT ED IN HIS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT MORE THAN HIS TURNOVER AND NOTICES U/S. 143(2) & 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. 4. DURING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS AXIS BANK ACCOUNT ON VARIOUS DATES AGGREGATING TO RS. 5 2,74,000/ - . ON QUERY ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE DETAILS OF HIS SOURCE FOR THE BANK DEPOSITS WITH EVIDENCE / SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS . THEREFORE THE LD. A.O. TREATED THE CASH DEPOSITS AS HIS UNEXPLAINED CREDITS AND MADE ADDITION U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. AGGRIE VED, ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). ON 3 APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S.69 OF THE ACT . 5 . AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN POSSESSION OF THE REQUISITE EVIDENCE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF BANK DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT . IT WAS THEREFORE REQUESTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO FOR DE - NOVO CONSIDERATION. THE LD. DR RAISE D SERIOUS OBJECTION FOR REMITTING BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AND PRAYED FOR CONFIRMING THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE . 6 . HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION, AND CON SIDERING THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO FOR DE - NOVO CONSIDERATION SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THE SOURCE OF HIS BANK DEPOSITS . ACCORDINGLY, WE HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO WITH DIRECTIONS TO ADMIT ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER EXAMINING THE SAME PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH ME RIT AND LAW. AT THE SAME BREATH, WE ALSO HEREBY CAUTION THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTLY CO - OPERATE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) IN THE PROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH THE LD. CIT (A) SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH 4 LAW AND MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON THE RECORD. IT IS OR DERED ACCORDINGLY. 7 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREIN ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 16 TH SEPTEMBER, 2021. SD / - SD/ - (S.S. GODARA) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 16 TH SEPTEMBER , 2021. OKK COPY TO: - 1) RAVINDRANATH JALADI C/O. T. CHAITANYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO.102, GOURI APARTMENT, URDULANE, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 15(3), HYDERABAD. 3) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 7, HYDERABAD. 4) THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 7, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE