B. Janardhan Reddy, Hyderabad, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 663/HYD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2349 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMAN MALIK
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 663/HYD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 B. JANARDHAN REDDY, HYDERABAD. PAN - VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 6(1) HYD. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY: SRI A.V. RAGHURAM REVENUE BY: SMT. SUMAN MALIK DATE OF HEARING: 23/11/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08/12/2017 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE O RDER OF CIT(A) - 9, HYDERABAD DATED 30/12/2016 RELATES TO T HE AY 2008-09. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2008-09 ON 18/07/20 08 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 8,62,290/- AND AGRIC ULTURE INCOME AT RS. 49,100/-. ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WAS C OMPLETED DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 15,87,290/-. ON APP EAL CIT (A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL. ON FURTHER APPEAL, HON'BL E ITAT VIDE ORDER DT. 28.02.2013 IN ITA NO. 1514/HYD/10 GA VE A RELIEF OF RS. 50,000/- AND REMITTED THE ISSUE OF UNEXPLAIN ED INVESTMENT OF U/S 69A OF RS. 5,00,000/- TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREAS THE REMAINING ADDITIONS WERE CONFIR MED. I.T.A. NO. 663/HYD/2017 B. JANARDHAN REDDY, HYD. 2 2.1 DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TAKEN UP IN CONSEQUENCE OF ITAT ORDER, ASSESSING OFFICER AGAIN ASSESSED AS INCOME OF RS. 5 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF CURRENCY NO TES OF RS. 1000/- DENOMINATION FOUND DURING THE SEARCH, WHICH ARE SERIALLY NUMBERED AS ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY FURTHER EXPLANATION. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, THE ASSESSEE PREFE RRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 4. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT CASH FOUND DURING SEARCH IS OUT OF ACCUMULATIO N OF CASH WITHDRAWALS OF EARLIER PERIOD AND THE SAME IS SUPP ORTED BY THE CASH AVAILABLE IN THE BOOKS. THESE NOTES WERE E XCHANGED WITH NEW CURRENCY WHICH ARE SERIALLY NUMBERED. 5. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER APPEAL. THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS SET ASIDE THE ISSUE OF UNEXPLAINED MONEY TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS O F THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT CASH IS AVAILABLE WITH HIM OUT OF WITHDRAWAL OF LAST TWO YE ARS. ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE HELD THAT THE SERIALLY NUMBERED NEW 1000/- NOTES CANNOT BE OUT OF OLD WITHDRAWALS. FURTHER, AS PER CASH BOOK CASH ON HAND IS NOT 5 LAKHS BUT LESS THAN THAT. THE ASSESSEE DID NO T CLAIM IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT T HE CASH AVAILABLE IS OUT OF EXCHANGE OF OLD CURRENCY I F ANY. THIS ARGUMENT IS BROUGHT FORWARD NOW AND THERE IS N O EVIDENCE FURNISHED TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS NEW CLAIM E VEN DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING OR APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS CORREC T THEN THE MONEY IN SERIAL NUMBERED NOTES SHOULD HAVE COME I.T.A. NO. 663/HYD/2017 B. JANARDHAN REDDY, HYD. 3 FROM A SINGLE SOURCE THE DETAILS OF WHICH THE ASSES SEE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO FURNISH. THEREFORE, THE ARGUME NT OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED TO BE ONLY AN AFTERTHOUGHT FOR WHICH THERE IS NO COGENT EVIDENCE AVAILABLE. IN VIE W OF THE ABOVE I HOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CORRECT LY REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE I FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION IS CONFI RMED. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE I S IN APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF A PPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE O RDER OF THE AO IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.5,00,000/- MADE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH FOUND DURING SEARCH IN SPITE OF EVIDENCE OF AVAILABILITY OF CASH IN CASH BOOK THOUGH ENTRIES IN SUCH CASH IS NOT PROVED TO B E FALSE MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE CASH IS FOUND I N SERIALLY NUMBERED NOTES. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT WHA T IS LEGALLY REQUIRED IS WHETHER THERE IS SOURCE FOR HOL DING SUCH AMOUNT OF CASH AND NOT THE FORM IN WHICH IT SH OULD BE AVAILABLE AND THEREBY ERRED IN HOLDING THE CASH FOUND TO BE UNEXPLAINED AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION. 4. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME O F HEARING. 7. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD. WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDI TION MADE BY THE AO, THE CIT(A) GAVE A CATEGORICAL FINDING TH AT T HE ASSESSEE DID NOT CLAIM IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS THAT THE CASH AVAILABLE IS OUT OF EXCHANGE OF OLD C URRENCY IF ANY. THIS ARGUMENT IS BROUGHT FORWARD NOW AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FURNISHED TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS NEW CLAIM E VEN DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING OR APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS CORRECT THEN THE MONEY IN SERIAL NUMBERED NOTES SHOULD HAVE COME FROM A SINGLE SOURC E THE DETAILS OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO FURNISH. I.T.A. NO. 663/HYD/2017 B. JANARDHAN REDDY, HYD. 4 THEREFORE, THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED TO BE ONLY AN AFTERTHOUGHT FOR WHICH THERE IS NO COGENT EVIDEN CE AVAILABLE.. EVEN BEFORE US, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF CO RROBORATIVE EVIDENCE AND, HENCE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH DECEMBER, 2017 SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 8 TH DECEMBER, 2017 KV COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI B. JANARDHAN REDDY, C/O S/SHRI K. VASANTKUMAR, AV RAGHURAM, P. VINOD & M. NEELIMA DEVI, ADVOCATES, 6 10 BABUKHAN ESTATE, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD 500 001. 2. DCIT, CIRCLE 6(1), IT TOWERS, HYD. 3. CIT(A) - 9, HYDERABAD 4 PR. CIT - 6, HYDERABAD 5 THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD S.NO. DESCRIPTION DATE INTLS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON SR.P.S./P.S 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR SR.P.S/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./PS SR.P.S./P.S 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR. P.S./P.S. I.T.A. NO. 663/HYD/2017 B. JANARDHAN REDDY, HYD. 5 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.P.S./P.S 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER