ITO, Ward-4(2), Hyderabaad, Hyderabad V. Sri Chandramouli Manchikanti, Hyderabad

ITA 68/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 6822514 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITA NO.68 OF 2015 CHANDRAMOULI MANCHIKANTI HYDERABA D PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 68/HYD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2) HYDERABAD VS. SRI CHANDRAMOULI MANCHIKANTI 3-4-15 FLAT NO.101 MEGACITI RESIDENCY, NARAYANGUDA HYDERABAD PAN: AAYPM 6922 D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR REVENUE : SHRI RAJAT MITRA, DR FOR ASSESSEE : N O N E DATE OF HEARING : 21.04.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 .04.2015 O R D E R PER SMT.P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-V, HYDERABAD DATED 31.10.2014 RELATING TO A.Y 2010- 11. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, A N INDIVIDUAL AND MANAGING PARTNER OF M/S GURU RAGHAVENDRA CONSTR UCTIONS, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION, FILE D HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y 2010-11 ON 9.3.2011 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.10,86,360. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHO WN A SUM OF RS.71,51,710 AS OPENING CASH AS ON 1.4.2009. ON VER IFICATION OF THE FIRMS CASH BOOK, HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN AN AMOUNT OF RS.50.00 LAKHS AS CASH FROM THE FIRM ON 31.03.2009. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE ITA NO.68 OF 2015 CHANDRAMOULI MANCHIKANTI HYDERABA D PAGE 2 OF 3 OF BALANCE CASH OF RS.21,51,710, AO TREATED IT AS U NEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AND BROUGHT IT TO TAX. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) STATING THAT THE AO HAS CONSIDERED ONLY THE CASH WI THDRAWAL OF RS.50.00 LAKHS FROM THE FIRM, BUT HAS NOT CONSIDERE D THE OTHER SOURCES OF HIS INCOME AS WELL AS HIS INCOME FROM EA RLIER YEARS AND MORE PARTICULARLY HIS RETURNED INCOME OF RS.51, 58,180 FOR A.Y 2009-10. HE ALSO MADE A STATEMENT THAT APART FR OM HIS INCOME, FAMILY CASH DRAWINGS FROM THE FIRM AS ON 31 .03.2009 ALSO INCLUDED RS.30.00 LAKHS IN HIS WIFES NAME. TH US, HE EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT CASH OF RS.71,51,710 AS ON 1.4.2009. THE CIT (A) ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CASH WITHDRAWALS OF HIS WIFE EXPL AINED THE SOURCES FOR THE BALANCE OF THE CASH ON HAND AND DEL ETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. AGAINST THE RELIEF GIVEN BY THE CIT (A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. IT IS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE CIT (A) H AS ERRED IN GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT PROPERLY VERI FYING THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN THE CASH WITHDRAWAL MADE BY HIS WIFE AS LOAN EITHER IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE FIRM OR IN HIS PERSONAL STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS FOR THE A.Y 2011-12 AND 2012-1 3 AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CON FIRMED. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. ON PERUSAL OF THE MATERIAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE FIND THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSEES WIFE SMT. M. VISHALA HA D WITHDRAWN A SUM OF RS.30.00 LAKHS FROM THE FIRM AS IS EVIDENT FROM PAGE 7 ITA NO.68 OF 2015 CHANDRAMOULI MANCHIKANTI HYDERABA D PAGE 3 OF 3 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE REVENUE. WE ALSO FIN D THAT IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE, UNSECURED LOAN FROM SMT. M. VISHALA IS SHOWN AS RS.43,65,843. FROM PAGES 4 TO 6 IS THE CASH BOOK FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 WHEREIN THE OPE NING BALANCE IS SHOWN AS RS.71,51,709. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS E XPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE OPENING BALANCE TO BE A LOAN FROM HIS WIFE SMT. M. VISHALA, THE DETAILS OF THE UNSECURED LOAN FROM SMT.VISHALA IS RS.43,65,843 ARE NOT AVAILABLE AND IT IS NOT KNOWN AS TO WHETHER IT INCLUDED THE LOAN OF RS.30.00 LAKHS AS CLAIMED B Y THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR OPINION, THESE FACTS NEED VERIFICA TION BY THE AO. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE DEEM IT PROPER AND FIT TO S ET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO ONLY TO VERIFY WHETHER THE UNSECURED LOAN FROM SMT. M. VISHALA INCLUDE THE LOAN OF RS.30 .00 LAKHS WHICH SHE HAD WITHDRAWN FROM THE FIRM AND WHETHER I T IS THE SOURCE FOR THE BALANCE CASH WITH THE ASSESSEE AND I F IT IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT, THEN NO ADDITION SHALL BE MADE. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS TR EATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH APRIL, 2015. S D/ - S D/ - (P.M. JAGTAP) (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 24 TH APRIL, 2015. VNODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2) HYDERABAD 2. SRI CHANDRAMOULI MANCHIKANTI, 3-4-15 FLAT NO.101, MEGACITI RESIDENCY, NARAYANGUDA HYDERABAD 3. THE CIT(A) V HYDERABAD 4. THE CIT IV HYDERABAD 5. THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER