Rajeev Agarwal, Hyd, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-6(1), Hyd., Hyderabad

ITA 886/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6439 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 30-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M SITARAM
• Keywords: Salary income; Onus to prove; Condonation of delay
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A (SMC) : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.886/HYD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 MR. RAJEEV AGARWAL HYDERABAD. PAN AHBPA9644G VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1) HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : MR. K.C. DEVDAS FOR REVENUE : MR. M. SITARAM DATE OF HEARING : 14.06.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 .06.2016 ORDER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-IV, HYDERABAD DATED 20.06.2014 AND IT PERTAINS TO THE A.Y. 2008-2009. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THERE IS A DELAY OF 295 DAYS IN FILING OF THE APPEAL. A PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT HIS AGED FATHER WAS SICK AND WAS IN HOSPITAL WITH V ARIOUS COMPLICATED MEDICAL PROBLEMS. THE ASSESSEE BEING TH E ELDER SON WAS ATTENDING ON HIM AND CONSEQUENTLY HE COULD NOT CONCENTRATE IN FILING OF THE PRESENT APPE AL. EVIDENCE TO THIS EFFECT HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE US. A FTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS, I AM CONVINCED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PREVENTED FROM SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM FI LING THE 2 ITA.NO.886/HYD/2015 MR. RAJEEV AGARWAL, HYDERABAD. APPEAL IN TIME. HENCE, THE DELAY IS CONDONED AND TH E APPEAL IS ADMITTED. 3. THE SOLE ISSUE TO BE ADJUDICATED IN THIS APPEAL IS, AN ADDITION OF RS.4,50,000 AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOS IT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, DERIVING INCOME FROM SALARY, CAPITAL GAINS AND OTHER SOURCES. HE FI LED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.07.2008 ADMITTING TOTAL INCO ME OF RS.1,41,624. THE A.O. FOUND THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT O F THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITS TO THE TUNE OF RS.19,10,500. THIS AMOUNT WAS ADDED UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CI T(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE EXPLANATION FURNI SHED BY THE ASSESSEE DELETED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.14,60,500 AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTE NT OF RS.4,50,000 [ WRONGLY MENTIONED AS RS.3,50,000 BY T HE CIT(A) ]. 5. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, I FIND THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN SUPPO RT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT HE HAD RECEIVED ADVANCE FROM HS ENTERPRISES AND M/S. SHIV GARMENTS AT RS.1 LAKH EAC H ON 16.07.2007 AND A FURTHER ADVANCE OF RS.1,50,000 FRO M M/S. SHIV GARMENTS ON 13.12.2007 AND THAT ANOTHER AMOUNT OF RS.1 LAKH WAS RECEIVED ON 24.03.2008. CONFIRMATION LETTERS ALONG WITH PROOF OF THE CAPACI TIES OF THESE PARTIES HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE FIRST APPE LLATE AUTHORITY. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY REJECTED T HESE 3 ITA.NO.886/HYD/2015 MR. RAJEEV AGARWAL, HYDERABAD. CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT M/S. SHIV GARMENTS HAS REGULAR BANK ACCOUNT AND HENCE, THERE IS NO REASON WHY THEY SHOULD PAY ADVANCE BY WAY OF CAS H TO THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF SMT. SHILPI AGARWAL OF HS ENTERPISES, THE ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS HAND WRITTEN REFERENCE IN THE COPIES OF THE E-RETURN FILED BEFORE HIM. IN MY VIEW , SUCH MINOR ISSUES CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR SUSTAINING AN ADDITION WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED BALANCE SHEET, P & L A/C AND COPY OF THE RETURN OF INCOME ETC., IN SUPP ORT OF THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF T HE TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE BURDEN OF PROOF THAT LAY ON HIM. IF THE A.O. IS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATION AND EVIDENCE FILED, THEN EVIDENCE HAS T O BE GATHERED TO CONTRADICT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. M ERELY REJECTING THE EVIDENCE FILED, DOES NOT WARRANT AN A DDITION. NO EXERCISE HAS BEEN DONE BY THE A.O. TO CONTROVERT THE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS ADDITION, IN MY VIEW, HAS TO BE NECESSARILY DELETED . 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17.06. 2016. SD/- (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 17 TH JUNE, 2016. VBP/- 4 ITA.NO.886/HYD/2015 MR. RAJEEV AGARWAL, HYDERABAD. COPY TO 1. MR. RAJEEV AGARWAL, HYDERABAD. C/O. SHRI B. NARSING RAO & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, PLOT NO.554, ROAD NO.92, JUBILEE HILLS , HYDERABAD 500 096. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6 ( 1 ), HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(A) - IV , HYDERABAD. 4. CIT - III , HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT A BENCH (SMC) HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE