IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.911/HYD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 MR. K. RAMAKANTHA RAO MIRYALAGUDA, NALGONDA DT. PAN ACVPK3786A VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 NALGONDA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : -NONE- FOR REVENUE : MR. A. SITARAMA RAO DATE OF HEARING : 19.10.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.10.2016 ORDER PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED B Y CIT(A)-3, HYDERABAD AND IT PERTAINS TO THE A.Y. 2010-20 11. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT MAY BE NOTICED THAT THE FORM NO.36 DOES NOT SPECIFY AS TO WHO IS THE APPELLANT INASMUCH A S INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NALGONDA WAS SHOWN AS APPELLA NT WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE WHO IS THE APPELLANT HEREIN WAS REFERRE D TO AS RESPONDENT. THOUGH A DEFECT MEMO WAS ISSUED ON 22.0 7.2016, TILL DATE THE DEFECT WAS NOT RECTIFIED. THE CASE WAS POSTE D FOR HEARING TODAY. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESS EE THOUGH NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY RPAD (AD CARD ON RECORD). WE, THEREFORE, PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX-PARTE, QUA THE ASS ESSEE. 2 ITA.NO.911/HYD/2016 MR. K. RAMAKANTHA RAO, MIRYALAGUDA, NALGONDA DIST., 3. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,21,265 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ALSO ADMITTE D AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.94,600 FOR RATE PURPOSES. THE CASE HAVING TAKEN-UP FOR SCRUTINY, THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED- UPON TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE FOR CASH DEPOSITS, NOTICED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT THE MONEY RECEIVED ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK AND AS AND WHEN HE NEEDED FUNDS HE USED TO WITHDRAW FUNDS FOR PURCHAS E OF AGRICULTURAL FIELDS, PURCHASE OF FERTILIZERS ETC. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE WERE FEW TRANSACTIONS WITH PRAKASH PUBLIC SC HOOL, AS HE WAS A CORRESPONDENT OF THE SCHOOL. THE ASSESSEE FI LED XEROX COPIES OF PASS BOOKS OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS SITUATED AT WARANGAL AND KHAMMAM DISTRICTS AND ALSO SOME SELF-MADE LETTERS TO THE EFFECT THAT HE HAS SOLD SOME AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE TO SR I PRAKASH RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL IN MIRYALAGUDA, WHICH DO NOT BEAR ANY DATE. THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY MATERIAL E VIDENCE WITH REGARD TO SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE SUCH AS M ARKET YARD RECEIPTS. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FO R SOURCE OF BANK DEPOSIT WAS NOT ACCEPTED. IN OTHERWORDS, THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THOUGH THERE WERE SEVERAL DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUN T, HE JUST CHOSE TO MAKE AN ADDITION REFERABLE TO PEAK CREDIT ONLY WHICH WORKED OUT TO RS.8,13,951 AND ASSESSMENT WAS ACCORDIN GLY COMPLETED ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.10,35,220. 4. THOUGH AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BEFORE THE CIT(A) , NONE APPEARED TO EXPLAIN THE RECEIPT OF ALLEGED AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. CIT(A) AFFI RMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHER AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THOUGH THE APPEAL WA S FILED ON 3 ITA.NO.911/HYD/2016 MR. K. RAMAKANTHA RAO, MIRYALAGUDA, NALGONDA DIST., 16.06.2016, TILL DATE THE DEFECT IN THE FORM NO.36 WAS NOT RECTIFIED AND NO PASS BOOK WAS FILED TO PROVE THAT ASSE SSEE WAS EARNING AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH WAS INTURN DEPOSI TED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL TO CONTRAD ICT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) DO NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. THEREFORE, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19.10.2016. SD/- SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) (D.MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRES IDENT HYDERABAD, DATED 19 TH OCTOBER, 2016 VBP/- COPY TO 1. MR. K. RAMAKANTHA RAO, S/O. PRAKASH RAO, AMRUTH NA GAR, MIRYALAGUDA, NALGONDA DISTRICT. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NALGONDA. 3. CIT(A)-3, HYDERABAD. 4. PR. CIT-3, HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. I.T.A.T. A BENCH, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE