JAGADESH KANDERI,HYDERABAD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 888/HYD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Jagadesh Kanderi, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, which sustained an addition of Rs.12.75 lakhs to his income for the assessment year 2017-18. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer due to unexplained cash deposits. The assessee argued that part of the deposit was agricultural income managed by his parents, which was supported by income tax returns for the previous years. The Tribunal accepted part of the assessee's explanation and directed the deletion of Rs.9,00,000 from the assessed income, while confirming Rs.3,75,000.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 46416 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 03-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 09-09-2024
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ADITI GOYAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SASHANK DONDU

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “SMC”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No.888/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Jagadesh Kanderi Hyderabad [PAN : AEOPK0220N] Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1) Hyderabad अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍ यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा/Assessee by: Shri Sashank Dondu, AR राजस्‍ व द्वारा/Revenue by : Shri Aditi Goyal, DR सुिवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 03/10/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement on: 14/10/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the order dated 08/07/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Learned CIT(A)”), in the case of Jagadesh Kanderi (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee preferred this appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, deriving income from house property and other sources. He filed return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 31/07/2017, declaring income of Rs.4,36,170/-. Learned Assessing Officer found cash deposit of Rs.20,00,000/- on 15/11/2016. Assessee explained that the cash withdrawn from Kotak Mahindra Bank on 09/09/2016 is included in this amount, apart from other agricultural income. Learned Assessing Officer did not consider this contention and added the entire amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to the income of the assessee. 2 3. When assessee preferred appeal, learned CIT(A) considered Rs.7.25 lakhs as properly explained and directed the learned Assessing Officer to delete the same. He further sustained the addition of Rs.12.75 lakhs by not believing the same, which according to the assessee represents agricultural income. 4. It is the contention of the learned Ld.AR that the parents of the assessee reside at the village looking after agricultural operations in the land possessed by the assessee and they are keeping the agricultural income of Rs.1.95 lakhs per year and this fact is evident from the income tax return filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2015-16 to 2017- 18. Learned AR further pleaded that the total income of the assessee during the assessment year 2015-16 to 2017-18 is Rs.2,86,500/-, Rs.4,44,840/- and Rs.4,36,170/- respectively and therefore, the same may be considered towards explanation in respect of the balance of Rs.12.75 lakhs. 5. Learned LD.DR contended that both the authorities considered this contention of the assessee and negated the same holding that there is no evidence to prove the said fact. 6. I have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. Assessee claimed to have declared Rs.1.95 lakhs each for the assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 towards agricultural income in the return of income and there is no contradiction of the said fact. Version of the assessee is that in view of the health condition of his father, the said amount is left to the custody of his parents for using the same, whenever the need arises. It is the contention on behalf of the assessee that it is only because of the compulsion of demonetization, such an amount had to be deposited in bank, otherwise, such amount used to be with the parents of the assessee. 7. Assessee filed returns of income for the assessment year 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18, declaring income of Rs.2,86,500/-, Rs.4,44,840/- and Rs.4,36,170/- respectively and this fact is also not contradicted. Considering all these facts and circumstances in totality, I deem it just and proper to 3 accept the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for each year after taking into consideration, the amount necessary for the expenses of the assessee. On this score, out of the balance amount of Rs.12,75,000/-, sum of Rs.9,00,000/- is acceptable and the learned Assessing Officer is directed to delete the same. Balance amount of Rs.3,75,000/- is confirmed. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this the 14th day of October, 2024. Sd/- (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 14/10/2024 L.Rama, SPS 4 Copy forwarded to: 1. Jagadesh Kanderi, F.No.602, JKM Avenue, Street No.8, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad 2. The ITO, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad 3. The Pr.CIT, Hyderabad 4. The DR, Hyderabad 5. Guard File TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, HYDERABAD "