IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES : BENCH B HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE ) BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 9 51 /HYD./201 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 5 - 06 SHRI PANDALA LINGAM GOUD VS. ITO, WARD - 15 ( 4 ) HYDERABAD HYDERABAD [PAN: AHEPP 7826Q ] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE: SHRI S. RAMA RAO, ADV. FOR REVENUE: SHRI ROHIT MUJUMDAR , CIT, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 07/04/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 /06/2021 O R D E R PER S.S. GODARA, J.M. THIS ASESSEES APPEAL FOR AY 20 0 5 - 06 ARISES FROM CIT(A) - 7 HYDERABADS ORDER DATED 08.11. 2016 PASSED IN CASE NO. 229 /201 5 - 16 INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) R .W.S. 254 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR SHORT THE ACT. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. ITA NO. 951/HYD/17 AY: 2005 - 06 SRI PANDALA LINGAM GOUD 2 AT THE OUTSET IT IS OBSERVED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 21 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AFFIDAVIT STATING THAT DUE TO HIS ILL HEALTH AND HOSPITALIZATION THE APPEAL WAS DELAYED AND PRAYED FOR CONDONATION OF THE DELAY. AS THE DELAY IS NEITHER INTENTIONAL NOR WILFUL, WE CONDONE THE SAME. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS IN THE INSTANT APPEAL. 2. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.68 OF THE ACT TO UNSECURED LOANS AGGREGATING TO RS.3 LAKHS. 3. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN TREATING T HE AMOUNT OF RS.5,30,338/ - AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS INTO BANK ACCOUNT BY APPLYING PROVISIONS OF SEC.69A OF THE ACT PARTICULARLY WHEN THE APPELLANT HAD SOURCE FOR SUCH DEPOSITS. 4. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS1,17,846/ - BEING DIFFERE NCE BETWEEN PURCHASES AND SALES OF COSMETICS. THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE SAID AMOUNT REPRESENTS BUSINESS LOSS. 5. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN HOLDING THAT THE EXPENDITURE OF RS14,115/ - INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT RELATABLE TO BUSINESS ACTIVITY. 3 . LEARNED COUNSEL IS FAIR ENOUGH AT THE OUTSET THAT THE ASSESSEE NO MORE WISHES TO PRESS HIS 2 ND , 4 TH & 5 TH SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS; KEEPING IN MIND SMALLNESS OF THE SUMS THEREIN PROVIDED THE SAME ARE HELD AS ELIGIBLE FOR TELESCOPING BENEFIT AGAINST UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT ADDITIONS OF RS.5,30,338 (GR OUND NO. 3). 4 . LEARNED DR ALTHOUGH SUPPORTED ALL THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS BUT FAILED TO DISPUTE THE CLINCHING FACT THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION S SUM ( S ) OF RS.1,17,846/ - AND RS.14,115/ - HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AS FORMING SOURCE ITA NO. 951/HYD/17 AY: 2005 - 06 SRI PANDALA LINGAM GOUD 3 OF ASSESSEES ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS A ND NO TELESCOPING BENEFIT CONSIDERED AGAINST THE SAME IN OTHER WORDS. 5 . FACED WITH THIS FACTUAL POSITION, WE AFFIRM THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF UNSECURED LOANS OF RS.3 LAKHS, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PURCHASE AND SALES OF RS.17,546/ - AND EXPENSES OF RS.14,11 5/ - AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GRANT TELESCOPING OF THE SAME AGAINST THE UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS OF RS.5,30,338/ - AS PER LAW. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. THE ASSESSEES 3 RD SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IS PARTLY ACCEPTED IN FOREGOING TERMS. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN ABOVE TERMS. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 11 TH JUNE, 2021. SD/ - SD/ - (L.P. SAHU) (S.S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: THE 11 TH JUNE, 2021. * GMV COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SRI PANDALA LINGAM GOUD, H.NO. 19 - 18/17B, RUKIMINIPURAM, ECIL, KAPRA, HYDERABAD 500 0 62 . 2. ITO, WARD - 15 ( 4 ), HYDERABAD . 3. ACIT, RANGE 15 , HYDERABAD. 4. CIT(A) - 7 , HYDERABAD 5. PR.CIT - 7 , HYDERABAD 6 . DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD. 7 . GUARD FILE.