Paidi Srinivasa Rao, , Ranasthalam V. ITO, Ward-1,q, Srikakulam

ITA 469/VIZ/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5156 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K C DAS
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO , HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 469 / VIZ /201 7 (ASST. YEAR : 20 11 - 12 ) PAIDI SRINIVASA RAO, PYDIPETA VILLAGE, R ANASTHALAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. V S . IT O , WARD - 1, SRIKAKULAM . PAN NO. BHVPS 8449 C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI C. SUBRAHMANYAM, FCA . DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI K.C. DAS SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 18 / 0 7 /201 8 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 / 0 7 /201 8 . O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER TH IS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 2 , GUNTUR , DATED 24 /0 5 /201 7 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 11 - 12 . 2. GROUND NOS. 1 & 5 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE, THEREFORE, NO ADJUDICATION IS REQUIRED. GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS OF RS. 5,98,000/ - . 2 ITA NO. 469/VIZ/2017 ( PAIDI SRINIVASA RAO ) 3 . FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE BORROWED LOANS FROM VARIOUS PERSONS AMOUNTING TO RS.5,98,000/ - . WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE TH E SE LOANS WITH NECESSARY DETAILS, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT HE BORROWED THE ABOVE AMOUNTS FROM THREE PARTIES, NAMELY 1) SRI JANAPALA SURYA RAO OF RS. 1,99,500/ - ; 2) INAPAKURTHI VENKATA RAO OF RS. 1,99,500/ - ; AND 3) PYHDI VENKATA RAO OF RS. 1,99,600/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM THE LOAN CREDITORS ABOUT THE DATES, ON WHICH HE RECEIVED LOANS AND ALSO NOT MENTIONED ABOUT THE MODE OF PAYMENT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DOUBT ED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LOAN CREDITORS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANS A CTIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RESPONDED TO SHOW - CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED THESE AMOUNTS , AGGREGATING TO RS. 5,98,000/ - AS UNPROVED CASH CREDITS UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND THE SAME IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 . ON APPEAL , THOUGH THIS GROUND IS RAISED, LD . CIT(A) WAS NOT ADJUDICATED . BEFORE US , ASSESSEE NEITHER FILED ANY DETAILS NOR 3 ITA NO. 469/VIZ/2017 ( PAIDI SRINIVASA RAO ) EXPLAN ATION ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION IS CORRECTLY MADE AND NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR . THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 5. GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION OF B AN K G UARANTEE COMMISSION OF RS. 1,40,204/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASKED THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SOURCE OF THE ABOVE PAYMENT AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EXPLANATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED SOURCE AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SO U RCES. THOUGH, THIS GROUND IS RAISED BEFORE THE LD. C IT(A), WAS NOT ADJUDICATED. EVEN BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE PAYMENTS NOR ANY EXPLANATION IS GIVEN. THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION IS MADE CORRECTLY AND OUR INTERFERENCE IS NOT CALLED FOR . THUS, THIS G ROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 6 . GROUND NO.5 RELATES TO CONSIDERATION OF TELESCOPING OF THE SUBJECT ADDITION . THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED TELESCOPING OF THE SUBJECT ADDITION FROM OUT OF THE ESTIMATED INCOME. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE NEITHER APPEARED BEFORE THE 4 ITA NO. 469/VIZ/2017 ( PAIDI SRINIVASA RAO ) ASSESSING OFFICER NOR FILED ANY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO LOAN CREDITORS AND BG COMMISSION. EVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), NO DETAILS WERE FILED. BE FORE US ALSO, NO DETAILS ARE FILED. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , TH IS GROUND RAISED FOR TELESCOPING OF THE SUBJECT ADDITION IS REJECTED . THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 7 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON TH IS 20 TH DAY OF JULY , 201 8 . S D / - S D / - ( D.S. SUNDER SINGH ) ( V. DURGA RAO ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 20 TH JULY , 201 8 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE PAIDI SRINIVASA RAO, PYDIPETA VILLAGE, RANASTHALAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE REVENUE ITO, WARD - 1, SRIKAKULAM. 3. THE PR. CIT - 2, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. THE CIT(A) - 1, GUNTUR. 5. THE D.R . , GUNTUR. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (VUKKEM RAMBABU) SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM.