Nagaraju Mutyala, Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(4), Hyderabad

MA 130/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1183 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 29-11-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NILANJAN DEY
• Assessee Lawyers: V SIVA KUMAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Additional evidence
• Section: 69B; 201; 254(2); 13; 131; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH SMC ', HYDERABAD SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO. 13 0 /HYD/2019 (IN I TA NO . 2 254 / HYD/201 7 A SSESSMENT Y EAR : 20 14 - 15 ) NAGARAJU MUTYALA, HYDERABAD. PAN A KBPM 9586 A VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 15(4), HYDERABAD. APP LICANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY: S HRI V. SIVA KUMAR REVENUE BY: S HRI NILANJAN DEY DATE OF HEARING: 0 6 / 1 2 / 201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18 / 1 2 /201 9 O R D E R THIS MA IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 254(2) OF THE IT A C T SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF CERTAIN MISTAKES APPARENT FROM THE RECORD THAT HAVE CREPT INTO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN ITA NO. 2254/HYD/2017 DATED 24/05/2019. 2. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING SUFFICIENT FUNDS IN THE BANK BY WAY OF CASH DEPOSITS AND FROM THE BANK STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE SAME IS EXTRACTED AT PAGE 6 OF MA. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION IS NOT WARR ANTED. 3. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE NEITHER BEFORE THE AO NOR BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE BANK STATEMENT FILED BEFORE THE ITAT AFTER A LONG PERIOD. M.A. NO. . 13 0 /HYD/ 201 9 NAGARAJU MUTYALA, HYD. 2 4. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 10,98,000/ - ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OR ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT , WHEN ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT TO THE TUNE OF RS. 10,98,000/ - . FURTHER, A S TATEMENT RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE ACT ON 25/11/2016 WHEREIN IT WAS ASKED THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE AMOUNT OF RS. 10,98,000/ - INVESTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT , THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT OFFER ANY EXPLANAT ION. THEREFORE , THE AMOUNT OF RS. 10,98,000/ - WAS BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE AO AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69B OF THE ACT. EVEN BEFORE ME , THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY EXPLANATION NOR FILED ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE SOURCE FOR THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 10 ,98,000/ - . THEREFORE , THE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 24/05/2019 (SUPRA) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 7. IN SO FAR AS ADDITION IN RESPECT OF RS. 10,98,000/ - IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS NEITHER BEFORE THE A.O. NOR BEFORE THE CIT(A). THEREFORE, IN MY OPINION, AT THIS STAGE THE DETAILS FILED CANNOT BE ADMITTED AFTER A LONG PERIOD. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASON AS TO WHY HE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE RELEVANT DETAILS BEFORE T HE A.O. IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. EVEN BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT IMPROVE HIS CASE WITH ANY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURC E FOR THE ADVANCE GIVEN TO SRI SAILU GOUD. THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ADMITTED AT THIS STAGE AND THE SAME IS REJECTED. 8. ON MERITS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED HIS INABILITY TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF THE DIS PUTED AMOUNTS BEFORE THE A.O. AS HE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS AS WELL AS THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE A.O. MADE HIS OBSERVATIONS AS UNDER: Q.11: IN VIEW OF YOUR FAILURE IN SUBSTANTIATING YOUR CLAIM OF GETTING FUNDS THROUGH FAMILY SETTLEMENT, SOURCES FOR CERTAIN INVESTMENTS M.A. NO. . 13 0 /HYD/ 201 9 NAGARAJU MUTYALA, HYD. 3 MADE, YOU ARE HEREBY REQUIRED TO SHOW CAUSE AS THE WHY THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS SHOULD NOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX: SL NO. NATUR E OF ADDITION AMOUNT ADDITION 1. UNEXPLAINED CREDIT IN YOUR SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT HELD WITH TELANGANA STATE COOPERATIVE APEX BANK LTD BEARING ACCOUNT NO.36/4978/486938 AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 68 OF THE IT ACT, 1961. RS. 17,00,000/ - 2. UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE OUT OF YOUR SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT HELD WITH TELANGANA STATE COOPERATIVE APEX BANK LTD BEARING ACCOUNT NO. 36/4978/486938 AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69B OF THE IT ACT, 1961. RS. 10,98,000/ - ANS. I HAVE NO EXPLANATION TO OFFER AND I OFFER THE SAME TO TAX FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. Q. 12. DO YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING? ANS: I AM A SMALL BUSINESS MAN CARRYING PETTY CONTRACT WORKS. I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT INCO ME TAX MATTERS AND NOT MAINTAINED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN VIEW OF CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES POINTED OUT, I VOLUNTARILY CAME FORWARD AND ADMITTED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 17,00,000/ - TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IN MY SAVINGS BANK A CCOUNT AND RS. 10,98,000/ - TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND I PROMISE THAT I WILL PAY THE RESULTANT TAXES AT THE EARLIEST. THEREFORE, I PRAY THAT LENIENT VIEW MAY KINDLY BE TAKEN TOWARDS PENAL CONSEQUENCES THAT ARE ATTRACTED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961. SD/ - XXX DEPONENT THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS GIVEN OUT OF MY FREE WILL. THERE IS NO COERCION OR UNDUE INFLUENCE BY ANYBODY. THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS READOVER TO ME IN THE LOCAL LANGUAGE TELUGU AND THE STATEMENT IS RECORDED AS PER MY VERSION. 9. BEFORE CIT(A), NO EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN AND NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED. THEREF ORE, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE A.O. BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAREFULLY. THE AR OF THE APPELLANT COULD NOT CONTRADICT THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 17,00,000/ - AND RS. 10,98,000/ - REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. THE APPELLANT DEPOSITED IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATEMENT U/S 131 OF THE IT ACT THAT SAID AMOUNT IS UNEXPLAINED. THE ORAL M.A. NO. . 13 0 /HYD/ 201 9 NAGARAJU MUTYALA, HYD. 4 SUBMISSION OF THE AR OF THE APPE LLANT DID NOT CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THAT THE SAID 7 AMOUNT(S) ARE UNEXPLAINED. THE SOURCE OF HUGE AMOUNTS OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ON SEVERAL DATES WAS NOT EXPLAINED WITH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. HOWEVER, THE ADDITION OF RS. 17 LA KHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS PROPER ON MERITS, SAME NEEDS TO BE CONFIRMED AS AN ADDITION U/S 69B OF THE IT ACT, INSTEAD U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT. 10. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN MY VIEW THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE CIT(A) IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I HAVE NOT NOTICED ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD TO MODIFY ANYTHING U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT AND, THEREFO RE, THE MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH DECEMBER , 201 9. SD/ - ( V. DURGA RAO ) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 18 TH DECEMBER , 201 9. KV COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. S. NAGARAJU MUTYALA, H.NO. 1 - 10 - 28/228/120A, NAGARJUNA NAGAR COLONY, KUSHAIGUDA, ECIL POST., HYDERABAD 500 062. 2 . I T O , WARD 15(4), IT TOWERS, AC GUARDS, HYDERABAD . 3 . CIT (A) - 7 , HYDERABAD. 4. PR. CIT - 7 HYDERABAD 5. THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6. GUARD FILE