Manpreet Kaur Hyd Hyderabad v. Ito Ward 5 2 Hyd Hyderabad

In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad Benches B Smc Hyderabad Before Shri B Ramakotaiah Accountant Member I T A No 1181 Hyd 2016 Assessment Year 2011 12 Smt Manpreet Kaur Hyderabad Pan Bgwpk 1935 M Vs The Income Tax Officer Ward 5 2 Hyderabad Appellant Respondent For Assessee Shri B Shanthi Kumar Ar For Revenue Ms K J Divya Dr Date Of Hearing 07 12 2017 Date Of Pronouncement 20 12 2017 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By Assessee Against The Order Of Th E Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals 4 Hyderabad Dated 24 06 2016 For The Ay 2011 12 The Grounds Raised By Assessee Are As Under 1 The Cit Appeals Erred Both In Law And On Facts In Confirming Addition To The Extent Of Rs 8 38 000 Out Of Addition Of Rs 12 78 000 2 The Cit Appeals Ought To Have Accepted Assessee S Explanation For The Sources Of Entire Deposits Into The Bank And Delete D The Addition Of Rs 12 78 000 Instead Of Confirming Addition To The T Une Of Rs 8 38 000 Ground No 3 Is General In Nature 2 Briefly Stated Assessee Is An Individual And Has Income From Deposits By Way Of Interests During The Year The Ass Essing Officer Ao Noticed That Assessee Had Deposits In Bank Account And On Getting Explanation Treated The Following Deposits As U Nexplained I T A No 1181 Hyd 2016 2 Sl No Particulars Date Amount Rs 1 Cash Deposit 12 06 2010 2 00 000 2 Cash Deposit 14 06 2010 1 70 000 3 Cash Deposit 26 07 2010 90 000 4 Cash Deposit 09 09 2010 1 50 000 5 Cash Depo Sit 01 10 2010 1 00 000 6 Cash Deposit 23 10 2010 48 000 7 Cash Deposit 09 12 2010 5 00 000 8 Cash Deposit 18 03 2011 20 000 Total 12 78 000 2 1 It Was The Explanation Of Assessee That The Deposits Are Earlier Withdrawals And Return Of Advances On Which I Nterest Was Offered Partly In Last Year And Partly In The Year Ao Did Not Accept The Explanation 3 Before The Ld Cit A Assessee Explained As Under 4 The Appellant Contends That The Ao Is Not Justi Fied In Rejecting The Explanation Without Considering The Full Facts Of T He Case This Is Because A No Reason Is Mentioned For Rejecting The Availabili Ty Of Opening Cash Balance Of Rs 79 517 B When It Was Submitted That The Loans Amounting To Rs 5 85 000 Given On Interest Was Received Back And That The Lo Ans Being Petty In Nature Therefore The Names And Addresses Could N Ot Be Given The Ao Is Not Justified In Giving Credit On This Very Amount Interest Of Rs 1 16 400 Was Disclosed In The Preceding Year And Interest Of Rs 58 150 Is Disclosed In This Year C Without Mentioning Anything In The Assessment Order The Ao Rejected The Explanation That The Appellant Had Wit Hdrawn Rs 7 40 000 From The Same Account As This Remained Unutilized Was Available For Depositing In The Bank This Claim Is Supported By The Decision Of Itat Hyderabad Bench A In Ita No 469 Hyd 2014 Dt 27 03 2015 In The Case Of C Vamsi Mohan Vs Ito W Ard 1 Nandyal In The Light Of The Above Facts And Judicial Pronou Ncement The Appellant Prays For Deleting The Addition Of Rs 12 78 000 And Oblige I T A No 1181 Hyd 2016 3 4 Ld Cit A Has Considered And Decided The Issue As Under 6 I Have Carefully Considered The Assessment Orde R And The Submissions Of The Appellant During The Course Of Appeal Proceedings The Cash Flow Statement Was Submitted By The Appellant On Verification Of The Cash Flow Statement It Is Observed That There Is C Ash Deposits Of Rs 80 000 On 04 06 2010 Rs 2 00 000 On 12 06 201 0 And Rs 1 70 000 On 14 06 2010 Totaling To Rs 4 50 000 For Which There Is No Sources Explained By The Appellant Therefore T He Addition Of Rs 4 50 000 Confirmed However This Amount Was Avai Lable As Cash And Next On 14 06 2010 There Is Fixed Deposit Of Rs 4 00 000 Which Needs To Be Treated As Explained Again There Are Cash Ba Lances On 26 07 2010 Of Rs 90 000 On 09 09 2010 Of Rs 1 50 000 O N 01 10 2010 Of Rs 1 00 000 And On 23 10 2010 Of Rs 48 000 Totall Ing To Rs 3 88 000 These Amounts To Be Treated As Not Explained There Fore To Be Confirmed 7 The Cash Withdrawal Shown In The Statement On 01 10 2010 Of Rs 2 00 000 The Appellant Explained It As Bank Loan Therefore The Same Is Considered As Explained On 02 12 2010 Ther E Is Deposits Of Rs 4 01 578 For Which The Appellant Explained That The Said Amount Was Received On Closing Of Earlier Fd Made Along With I Nterest Of Rs 4 00 000 Hence This Amount To Be Considered As Explained 5 It Was The Contention Of Ld Counsel That Ld Cit A Should Have Accepted Assessees Contentions But Wrongly Conf Irmed The Amount To An Extent Of Rs 8 38 000 Whereas An Amou Nt Of Rs 10 00 000 Was Treated As Explained 6 Ld Dr Relied On The Orders 7 I Have Considered The Rival Contentions And Examine D The Statement Of Affairs And Bank Statement Placed On Record The Order Of Ld Cit A Is Partly Correct And Partly Mislea Ding On Facts While Accepting The Amount Of Deposits At Rs 4 50 000 Upto 14 06 2010 Ld Cit A Considered A Deposit Of Rs 8 0 000 On 04 06 2010 There Is No Such Deposit On That Day E Ven The Aos Deposits Listed In The Order Starts From 12 06 2010 As First Cash I T A No 1181 Hyd 2016 4 Deposit Which Is Verifiable From Bank Statement As Well Therefore Without Relying Fully On The Order Of Ld Cit A Th E Issue Is Reconsidered As Under A The First Set Of Deposits To The Tune Of Rs 3 70 000 Was On 12 06 2010 14 06 2010 For Which Assessee Drew An Amount Of Rs 3 20 000 On 05 04 2010 And 08 04 201 0 Only If The Cash Balance On Hand Is Accepted Then Th E Deposits On Those Days Stands Explained B The Next Set Of Deposits Are From 26 07 2010 To 23 10 2010 Totalling To Rs 3 88 000 There Are No Withdrawals From Bank A C To Support Explanation Was That These Are S Ourced From Earlier Advances Shown As Debtors In Balance S Heet In Last Year And Interest Earned C The Third Set Of Deposit Was On 09 12 2010 Of Rs 5 00 000 Again For Which There Is A Withdrawal Of Rs 2 00 00 0 On 07 12 2010 Balance Not Supported By Withdrawals D The Last Deposit Of Rs 20 000 On 08 03 2011 Was So Urced From Earlier Withdrawals Of Rs 10 000 Each On 03 03 2010 And 09 03 2010 This Can Be Explained Thus Rs 50 000 Extra Deposit In Item A Rs 3 8 8 000 In Item B And Rs 3 00 000 And In Item C Require Expla Nation 8 Assessee Has Not Placed The Earlier Year Statements Or This Year Statements Of Balance Sheet And P L A C On Record So As To Verify The Contention That These Are Sourced From Cash Ba Lance And I T A No 1181 Hyd 2016 5 Debtors And Interest Since These Details Are Not Place D On Record The Veracity Of Them Could Not Be Verified Even The Ao Or Cit A Has Not Commented About That Therefore I Am Of The O Pinion That The Ao Is Required To Verify The Statements Of Earlier Y Ear And Of This Year To See Whether The Contention Of Assessee Is Co Rrect In Case Of Existence Of Debtors And Cash Balance Of Ear Lier Year And There Is Corresponding Reduction Of Balances In This Year Then Ao Can Give Credit To That Extent In Case The Cash Balan Ce And Debtors Have Increased Ao Can Give Opportunity To As Sessee And Then May Confirm To That Extent These Require Verificatio N Of Statements Already Filed With The Returns Assessee Shoul D Be Given Opportunity To Explain Thus Out Of The Amount Of Rs 8 38 000 Confirmed By Ld Cit A An Amount Of Rs 7 38 000 Is Restored To The File Of Ao For Necessary Verification And Balance Is Considered As Explained Grounds Are Partly Allowed For Statistic Al Purposes 9 In The Result Appeal Of Assessee Is Partly Allowe D For Statistical Purposes Order Pronounced In The Open Court On 20 Th December 2017 Sd B Ramakotaiah Accountant Member Hyderabad Dated 20 Th December 2017 Tnmm I T A No 1181 Hyd 2016 6 Copy To 1 Smt Manpreet Kaur C O B Shanthi Kumar Advoc Ate 111 Taramandal Complex 5 9 13 Saifabad Hyderaba D 2 The Income Tax Officer Ward 5 2 Hyderabad 3 Cit Appeals 4 Hyderabad 4 Pr Cit 4 Hyderabad 5 D R Itat Hyderabad 6 Guard File