The DCIT, Circle-2(1), Guntur V. Smt Tunuguntla Annapurna, Guntur

ITA 479/VIZ/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 50211 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 05-04-2011
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K SINGH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Additional evidence; Onus to prove
• Section: 68; 148; 144

Judgement Text

ITA NOS 289 AND 479 OF 09 TUNUGUNTLA ANAPURNA GUNTU R PAGE 1 OF 9 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.289/VIZAG/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000 - 01 ACIT CIRCLE-2(1) GUNTUR VS. SMT. TUNUGUNTLA ANNAPURNA, GUNTUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO:ABJPT 0602 Q ITA NO.479/VIZAG/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1) GUNTUR VS. SMT. TUNUGUNTLA ANNAPURNA, GUNTUR (RESPONDENT) PAN NO:ABJPT 0602 Q (APPELLANT) DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI R.K. SINGH, DR ASSESSEE BY: SHRI G.V.N. HARI, CA ORDER PER SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 27.02.2009 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), GUNTUR A ND THEY RELATE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 & 2001-02. BOTH THE APPEA LS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND HENCE THEY ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY TH IS COMMON ORDER, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN B OTH THE YEARS READ AS UNDER: (A) THE LEARNED CIT(A), GUNTUR OUGHT TO HAVE CONFIR MED THE ASSESSMENTS SINCE EITHER IN THE STATEMENTS OF INCOM E FILED BEFORE THE ITA NOS 289 AND 479 OF 09 TUNUGUNTLA ANAPURNA GUNTU R PAGE 2 OF 9 ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), IT IS NO WHERE MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PROPRIETRIX OF M/S VLS SYSTEMS, GUNTUR FROM WHICH THE MONEYS TRANSACTED. (B) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A), GUNTUR HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE IT ACT TO WARDS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. IN EFFECT, THE REVENUE IS CHALLENGING THE DECISION O F LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.78,93,000/- AND RS.18, 55,890/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 AND 2001-02 RESPECTIVELY. 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUES ARE STATED IN BRIEF. IT CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT DEPOSITS AGGRE GATING TO RS.78.93 LAKHS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT DURIN G THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THAT YEAR, THE ASSESSING O FFICER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. SINCE THERE WAS NO COMPLIA NCE TO THE SAID NOTICE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT TO T HE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT BY TREATING THE ABOVE SAID SUM OF RS.78.93 LAKHS AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. SIMILARLY DU RING THE YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, THERE WERE DEPOSITS IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT TO THE TUNE OF RS.4.62 LAKHS. HENCE A NOTI CE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS ISSUED FOR THAT YEAR ALSO. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,18,904/-. HOWEVER, THE ASSE SSEE DID NOT RESPOND TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR COM PLETING THE ASSESSMENT. HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE T HE ASSESSMENT OF THIS YEAR ALSO TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. IN THE BALANCE SHEET FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME , THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE CAPITAL AT RS.96,29,990/-, WHICH THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TREATED AS ITA NOS 289 AND 479 OF 09 TUNUGUNTLA ANAPURNA GUNTU R PAGE 3 OF 9 UNEXPLAINED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER GAVE S ET OFF OF RS.78.93 LAKHS ASSESSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AND ACCORD INGLY BROUGHT TO TAX THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.17,36,990/- (RS.96,29,990 (-) RS.78,93,000/-) UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 4. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTERS IN APPEAL B EFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ASSESSEE FILED VARIOUS EVIDENCES AND INFORMATION TO EXPLAIN THE BANK DEPOSITS MADE DURIN G THE YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. THE ASSESSEE ALSO IND EPENDENTLY EXPLAINED THE VARIOUS ASSETS REPRESENTED BY THE CAPITAL BALAN CE AS ON 31.3.2001 IN ORDER TO PROVE THE CAPITAL BALANCE AS ON 31.3.2001. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFRONTED ALL THE SAID DETAILS WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT. IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSES SING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICES CALLING FOR CERTAIN INFORMATION FROM THE AS SESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED THE SAID DETAILS. HOWEVER, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER, FOR THE REASONS KNOWN TO HIM, DID NOT SEND THE REMAND REPOR T, BUT INSTEAD REQUESTED THE LEARNED CIT(A) NOT TO ACCEPT THE ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCES. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LEARNED CIT(A) PROCEEDED T O EXAMINE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON HER O WN. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HELD THAT THE DEPOSITS OF RS.78.93 LAKHS WERE DULY EXPLAINED AND DELETED THE ADDITION OF THE SAME IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 0-01. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO EXAMINED THE EVIDENCES SUPPORTING THE V ARIOUS ASSETS DEPICTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3.2001 AND NOTICED TH AT THERE WAS A NET ACCRETION OF ONLY RS.1,47,512/- IN THE ASSETS DURIN G THE YEAR ENDING 31.3.2001 VIS--VIS 31.3.2000. THE ABOVE SAID NET ACCRETION WAS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE INCOME GENERATED BY THE ASSESSEE F ROM VARIOUS SOURCES. ACCORDINGLY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO DELETED THE ADD ITION OF RS.17,36,990/- MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NOS 289 AND 479 OF 09 TUNUGUNTLA ANAPURNA GUNTU R PAGE 4 OF 9 5. THE LEARNED CIT, WHO WAS GIVEN TRIBUNAL CHAR GE, HAS FILED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND THE SAME WAS TAKEN ON RECORD. 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED FUNDS FROM HIS SON T HROUGH THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN BELONGING TO HIS SON. THE SAID CONCERN IS LOCATED IN USA. IN SUPPORT OF THE SOURCES FOR GIVING THESE AMOUNTS TO THE ASSESSEE, VARIOUS DETAILS SUCH AS, THE INCOME DETAILS OF THE SON, THE CONFIRMATION LETTER OBTAINED FROM THE BANKS ETC. WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE IMPUGNED AMOUNTS WERE INITIALLY DEPOSITED IN TH E PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE NAMED M/S VLS SYSTEMS AND THERE AFT ER THEY WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HERE IN IS THE PROPRIETRIX OF M/S VLS SYSTEM, IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IF THE DEPOSITS WERE DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF M/S VLS S YSTEMS OR IN THE PERSONAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE ASSESSE E HAS PROPERLY EXPLAINED THE SOURCES OF BANK DEPOSITS BEFORE LEARN ED CIT(A) WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCES AND ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE SAME ONLY, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS GIVEN THE RELIEF. HE FURTH ER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE BURDEN PLACED UPON HER UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND HENCE THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) SHOUL D BE UPHELD. WITH REGARD TO THE RELIEF OF RS.17,36,990/- GRANTED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBM ITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY EXPLAINED THE VARIOUS ASSETS REPR ESENTED BY THE CAPITAL BALANCE AS ON 31.3.2001 AND HENCE THE LEARNED CIT(A ) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ABOVE SAID ADDITION OF RS.17,36,990/-. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESE NTATIVE AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY LEARNED CI T AND ALSO THE RECORD. ITA NOS 289 AND 479 OF 09 TUNUGUNTLA ANAPURNA GUNTU R PAGE 5 OF 9 ACCORDING TO LEARNED CIT(A), THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT O F DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR RE LEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 WAS RS.86,67,000/-. HOWEVE R THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CHOSEN TO MAKE THE ADDITION ONLY TO THE TUNE OF RS.78,93,000/- ONLY. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH T HE DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS, YET ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED DURING THE APP ELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE FIRST APPELLATE AUT HORITY HAS ALSO CONFRONTED ALL THE DETAILS WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT CHOOSE TO SUBMIT THE REMAND REPORT EVEN THOUGH HE C ARRIED OUT CERTAIN ENQUIRIES DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. HENCE THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHOSE POWERS ARE CO-TERMINUS WITH THAT OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER, HAS CHOSEN TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCES ON HER OWN. THE LEARNED CIT (A), IN HER ORDER, HAS LISTED OUT THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. THE OBSERVATIONS OF LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE EXAMINATION O F THE SAID DOCUMENTS AND HER DECISION THERE UPON HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN PARAGRAPHS 10 TO 12 OF HER ORDER. WE EXTRACT BELOW THE RELEVANT PORTION O F THE LEARNED CIT(A), FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 10. THE APPELLANTS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAS FILED THE FOLLOWING DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEE DINGS (I) COPY OF AFFIDAVIT FROM THE APPELLANTS SON DULY NOT ARIZED IN THE USA. (II) COPY OF REMITTANCE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE DATED 21.01.2002 (III) COPY OF T HE BANK ACCOUNT HELD IN THE NAME OF VLS SYSTEMS INC OPERATED BY THE APPELLANTS SON WITH THE MID ATLANTIC FEDERAL CREDI T UNION IN MARYLAND, USA SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF THE MONEY T O THE ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF VLS SYSTEMS IN THE STATE BAN K OF TRAVANCORE. (IV) COPY OF THE TAX RETURNS FILED BY T HE APPELLANTS SON IN THE USA FOR THE YEARS 1998 TO 20 02. (IV) COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF M/S VLS SYSTEMS IN THE ST ATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE. (V) COPY OF THE APPELLANTS BANK ACC OUNT IN THE SAME BANK. ITA NOS 289 AND 479 OF 09 TUNUGUNTLA ANAPURNA GUNTU R PAGE 6 OF 9 11. THE COPY OF THE NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT OF THE APPE LLANTS SON DATED 15.07.2008 CONFIRMS THAT CONTAIN AMOUNTS WERE REMITTED TO THE APPELLANT DURING THE PERIOD 1999 TO 2001. THE AFFIDAVIT STATES THAT THE APPELLANTS SON HAD BEEN IN THE USA SINCE 1992 AND AFTER FINISHING HIS MS IN COMPUTERS IN 1993, WORKED WITH SEVERAL COMPANIES LIKE CITI GROUP, FANN IE MAE, EXXON/MOBIL ETC BEFORE SETTING UP COMPANY, M/S VLS SYSTEMS, WHICH WAS CLOSELY HELD AND OF WHICH HE WAS THE PRESIDENT. THE AFFIDAVIT FURTHER STATES THAT THE AP PELLANTS SON IS ASSESSABLE TO FEDERAL TAXATION IN THE USA AND AL SO FOR PAYMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY TAX, MEDICARE TAX ETC. C OPIES OF THE TAX RETURNS FILED BY THE APPELLANTS SON IN THE USA SHOW THAT HE AND HIS SPOUSE HAVE FILED JOINT RETURNS AND THE INCOME RANGES FROM 87173 DOLLORS IN THE YEAR 1996 TO 24793 0 DOLLARS IN THE YEAR 2002. THE APPELLANTS AUTHORISED REPRES ENTATIVE HAS ALSO FILED COPIES OF THE REMITTANCE CERTIFICATE S FROM STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE DATED 21.02.08 SHOWING THE REMIT TANCE OF MONEY IN TO THE ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF M/S VLS SYST EMS IN THE SAME BANK. FROM THIS ACCOUNT IT WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE APPELLANTS ACCOUNT NO 1379 IN THE STATE BANK OF TR AVANCORE. COPIES OF THE BANK ACCOUNT IN THE USA FROM WHICH TH E REMITTANCES WERE MADE IN CHEQUES WAS ALSO FILED BEF ORE ME AND VERIFIED. 12. THE REMITTANCE CERTIFICATES FILED BY THE APPELL ANT CLEARLY SHOW THE RECEIPT OF MONEY INTO THE ACCOUNT IN THE N AME OF M/S VLS SYSTEMS. THEREAFTER IT HAS ONLY BEE TRANSFE RRED INTO THE APPELLANTS ACCOUNT IN THE SAME BANK. THIS IS A LSO CLEARLY EVIDENT FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS PRODUCED BEFORE ME. THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE APPELLANTS SON, HIS BANK ACCOUNT COPY AND THE TAX RETURNS OF THE SON FILED BEFORE ME ALSO CONFIRM THAT THE REMITTANCES WERE MADE BY THE SON. THEREFORE, I HOLD THAT THE DEPOSIT OF RS.12,50,000/- ON 22.09.1998 AND OF RS.66,43,000/- ON 31.03.1999 HELD AS UNEXPLAINED DE POSITS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE OUT OF THE REMITTANCE S FROM THE APPELLANTS SON. THESE ARE REMITTANCES RECEIVED BY CHEQUES AND THE APPELLANTS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAS A LSO FILED COPIES OF THE SONS BANK ACCOUNTS TO SHOW THE REMIT TANCE OF THESE AMOUNTS. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT THE TOTAL REMITTANCES RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE RE LEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR WAS IN FACT RS.86,67,000/-. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONSIDERED ONLY REMITTANCES T O THE EXTENT OF RS.78,93,000/-. THESE CANNOT THEREFORE BE HELD AS ITA NOS 289 AND 479 OF 09 TUNUGUNTLA ANAPURNA GUNTU R PAGE 7 OF 9 UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS AND ADDED BACK AND THE APPELLA NTS INCOME. THE ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT IS THEREFORE D ELETED FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS MADE BY LEARNED CIT(A), WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEES SON HAS ONLY REMITTED THE IMPUGNED DEPOS IT AMOUNTS THROUGH PROPER BANKING CHANNELS TO THE ASSESSEE INTO THE AC COUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SOURCES FOR MAKING SUCH REMITTANCE HAVE ALSO BE EN DULY EXPLAINED BY THE REMITTER, I.E. THE ASSESSEES SON HAS PROVED TH AT HE HAS SUFFICIENT SOURCES. SINCE THE IMPUGNED AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN RECE IVED THROUGH THE BANKING CHANNELS, THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIO N IS ALSO PROVED. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE IDENTITY OF THE RE MITTER. IT IS WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO DISCHARGE THRE E MAIN INGREDIENTS VIS-- VIS CASH CREDITS, VIZ., THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITO R, THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF CREDITOR AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED ALL THE THREE I NGREDIENTS WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCES. 8 THE LEARNED CIT, IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, HAS CONTENDED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT EXAMINE THE NATURE OF RECEIP T, I.E. WHETHER THE IMPUGNED RECEIPTS ARE LOAN OR GIFT. HOWEVER, FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF SEC. 68, IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IF A CREDIT IS RECEIVED AS A LOAN OR AS A GIFT. SIMILARLY IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS NEVER MENTIONED THAT SHE WAS THE PROPRIETRIX OF M/S VLS SYSTEMS, IN WHOS E ACCOUNT THE IMPUGNED DEPOSITS WERE FIRST DEPOSITED. IN OUR VIEW, THE SA ID CONTENTION ALSO DOES NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IN CONNECTION WITH THE EXAM INATION OF THE GENUINENESS OF A CASH CREDIT. ULTIMATELY, THE ASSE SSEE HAS TO DISCHARGE THE INITIAL BURDEN OF PROOF PLACED UPON HIM AND IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE SAME HAS BEEN DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS PERTINEN T TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE EXISTENCE OF SAID CONCER N TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING REMAND PROCEEDING, BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ONLY ITA NOS 289 AND 479 OF 09 TUNUGUNTLA ANAPURNA GUNTU R PAGE 8 OF 9 DECLINED TO SUBMIT ANY REMAND REPORT BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A). WE NOTICE THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS EXAMINED THE VARIOUS EV IDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAS PROPERLY ADJUDICATED THE MATTER. HENCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH HER DECISION ON THIS I SSUE. 9. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADDED A SUM OF RS.17,36,990/-, BEING THE UNEXPLAINED CAPITA L AS PER THE COMPUTATIONS MADE BY HIM. THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOS ED A CAPITAL OF RS.96,29,990/- REPRESENTED BY VARIOUS ASSETS IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3.2001, WHICH WAS FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOO K THE ENTIRE CAPITAL BALANCE OF RS.96,29,900/- AS UNEXPLAINED, BUT GAVE SET OFF OF RS.78.93 LAKHS ASSESSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. AC CORDINGLY THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.17,36,990/- WAS BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001- 02. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ONLY IN RESPECT OF BANK DEPOSITS OF RS.4,62,500/-, BUT ULTIMATELY NO ADDITION WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF THOSE DEPOSITS. 10. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LEARNE D CIT(A) HAS ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE VARIOUS ASSETS DISCLOSED I N THE ABOVE SAID BALANCE SHEET WITH INDEPENDENT EVIDENCES. THE ASSESSEE FIL ED DETAILS PERTAINING TO THE BUSINESS INVESTMENTS AND ALSO THE DETAILS OF OT HER ASSETS. ON THE BASIS OF THE VARIOUS DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, T HE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOTICED THAT THERE WAS A NET ACCRETION OF RS.1,47,5 12/- ONLY DURING THE YEAR ENDING 31.3.2001, MEANING THEREBY MOST OF THE ASSET S WERE EXISTING IN THE EARLIER YEARS ALSO. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOT ICED THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO EXPLAIN THE A BOVE SAID NET ACCRETION. ACCORDINGLY, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITIO N OF RS.17,36,900/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2001-02, BUT DIRECTED ITA NOS 289 AND 479 OF 09 TUNUGUNTLA ANAPURNA GUNTU R PAGE 9 OF 9 THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASSESS THE CERTAIN INCOMES WHICH WERE NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSI DERED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) AND NOTICE THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ANALYSED THE VARIOUS DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAS T AKEN A REASONABLE VIEW OF THE MATTER. THOUGH THE DEPARTMENT HAS CHALLENGE D THE SAID DECISION OF LEARNED CIT(A), IT FAILED TO FURNISH ANY MATERIAL T O CONTRADICT HER FINDINGS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFE RE WITH THE DECISION OF LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. 11. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE A RE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH MAY, 2011. SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (B R BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PVV/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM, DATE: 25-05-2011 COPY TO 1 THE ACIT CIRCLE-2(1), GUNTUR 2 SMT. TUNGUNTLA ANNAPURNA, W/O JAGAN MOHAN RAO, D. NO.25-2-28 G.T. ROAD, GUNTUR 3 THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1) GUNT UR 4 5 THE CIT GUNTUR THE CIT(A), GUNTUR 6 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 7 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM