C Srinivas Karimnagar Hyderabad v. Ito Ward 1 Karimnagar Karimnagar

1 In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad Benches A Smc Hyderabad Before Shri D Manmohan Vice President Ita No 1573 Hyd 2016 Assessment Year 2012 2013 Shri Adepu Jagadeeshwar H No 3 3 119 Pedda Bazar Sirsilla Karimnagar 505001 Pan Ahopa 0557 F Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Karimnagar Appellant Respondent Ita No 1574 Hyd 2016 Assessment Year 2012 2013 Shri Bathula Ramesh H No 5 3 69 Main Road Sirsilla Karimnagar 505001 Pan Binpb 7311 M Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Karimnagar Appellant Respondent Ita No 1575 Hyd 2016 Assessment Year 2012 2013 Shri C Satish Kumar H No 4 4 8 Gold Smith Road Sirsilla Karimnagar 505001 Pan Aqppc 6386 G Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Karimnagar Appellant Respondent Ita No 1576 Hyd 2016 Assessment Year 2012 2013 Shri C Srinivas H No 4 2 16 1 Rallabavi Sirsilla Karimnagar 505001 Aizpc 0945 K Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Karimnagar Appellant Respondent For Assessee Shri K C Devdas For Revenue Shri M Sitaram V Sreekar Drs Date Of Hearing 11 10 2017 Date Of Pronouncement 2 9 12 2017 Order Per D Manmohan Vp These Appeals Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By Ld Cit A 2 Hyderabad And They Pertain To Assessment Year 2012 2013 2 In The Cases Of Shri A Jagadeeshwar Shri B Ramesh And Shri C Srinivas Unexplained Investment On Account Of Purchase Of A Pr Operty By Virtue Of Sale Deed No 130 2012 Dated 05 01 2002 Is Subject Mater Of Dispute Whereas In The Case Of Shri C Satish Kumar A O Noticed That He Purchased A Property Along With Shri Gollaplli Parsharam And Shri Chakrahari Laxmiraju Vide Registered Sale Deed No 129 2012 Dated 05 01 2002 Wherein Each Of Them Have Invested About Rs 8 50 Lakhs In The First Three Cases Each Assessees Share Of Investment Works Out To Rs 9 50 Lakhs 2 Since The Factual Matrix Of The Cases Are More Or Less Identical I Proceed To Dispose Of These Appeals By A Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience 3 In The Case Of Shri A Jagadeeshwar Return Of Income Was Filed For The A Y 2012 2013 On 31 03 2014 Admitting Taxable Income Of Rs 2 04 940 It Has Come To The Notice Of The Assessing Officer That This Assessee Along With Shri Bathula Ra Mesh And Shri C Srinivas Has Purchased A Property For A Consideration Of Rs 25 97 000 Registration Charges Out Of Which The Assessee Is 1 3 Rd Share Holder And As Such His Investment Works Out To Rs 9 50 Lakhs Rounded Of F But The Assessee Having Not Disclosed The Source Of Investment A Notice Was Issued U S 148 Of The Act On 04 07 2014 Since The Return Was Already Filed By The Assessee A Request Was Made T O Treat The Return Filed On 31 03 2014 In Response To A Notice U S 148 Of The Act Thereafter The A O Issued A Notice U S 143 2 Of The Act And Proceeded To Make Addition With Regard To Source Of Investment The Assessee Submitted That He Was Engaged In Trading Of Plastic Articles And Regularly Filing The Returns Of Income Right From A Y 2008 09 The Details Of Income Offered Are As Under 3 A Y Return Filed On Taxable Income Offered Tax Paid 2008 2009 29 08 2008 Rs 1 15 400 Rs 566 2009 2010 29 07 2009 Rs 1 47 000 Nil 2010 2011 06 12 2010 Rs 1 79 260 Rs 2 063 2011 2012 13 04 2012 Rs 1 80 335 Rs 2 100 4 It Was Also Submitted That The Investment In The Abovementioned Property Was Made Out Of The Family Saving Accrued Over A Period Of Time And Also Out Of Sale Proceeds Of Gold 5 A O Observed That The Income Offered By The Assessee Annually Is Marginally Above The Taxable Limits And Even For All The Four Years Put Together It Being Rs 6 5 Lakhs The Same Is Hardly Sufficient To Meet The Family Expenses And As Such There Cannot Be Much Savings Further The Assessee Having Not Filed Any Capital Account Along With The Return Of Income It Is Not Clear As To What Are The Savings Even With Reg Ard To The Claim Of Sale Of Gold No Evidence Was Produced Despite The Above Factors Assessing Officer Assumed That The Assessee Could Have Saved A Sum Of Rs 4 50 Lakhs For The Purpose Of Making Investment In Purchase Of Property In Sirsilla Village An D Thus The Balance Amount Of Rs 5 Lakhs Was Treated As Unexplained Investment And Accordingly Completed The Assessment By Determining The Income At Rs 7 04 940 6 Similarly In The Case Of Shri Bathula Ramesh Return Of Income Was Filed On 19 03 2 014 Admitting Taxable Income Of Rs 1 75 100 H Aving Regard To The Fact That Source Of Investment In Purchase Of Property At Sir C Illa Village Was Not Disclosed A Notice U S 148 Of The Act Was Issued On 04 07 2014 Assessee Requested The Assessing Officer To Treat The Return Already Filed U S 139 4 Of The Act As A Return Filed In Response To A Notice U S 148 Of The Act And Accordingly A Notice U S 143 2 Was Issued To Make A Detailed Analysis Of The Source Of Investment 4 7 The Case Of The Assessee Was That He Was Engaged In Agricultural Activities Income Therefrom Is Below Taxable Limit And He Was Also Engaged In Running A Tiffin C Entre Since Last 16 Years In Sir C Illa Village A O Observed That The Assessee Owns Less Than 4 Acres Of Dry Land And Assessees Father Owns About 3 Acres Of Dry Land No Details As To Extent Of Savings Out Of 7 Acres Of Agricultural Land And Accumulated Savings There From Could Be Produced He Also Observed That The Earning Out Of The Agricultural Operations Are Sufficient To Meet The Day To Day Family Expenses And There Would Not Have Been Any Savings Since The Assessee Is Aged About 46 Years And Doin G Agricultural Operations Since Long An Amount Of Rs 3 Lakhs Was Treated As Explained Which Is Considered As Available Out Of Past Savings And Balance Of Rs 6 50 Lakhs Was Treated As Unexplained Investment And Thus Completed The Assessment And D Etermined The Total Income At Rs 8 25 100 8 In The Case Of Shri C Sri Nivas Also Sale Deed Being Same As 1 3 Rd Share Holder Of The Property His Share Of Works Out To Rs 9 50 Lakhs Rounded Of F Though He Filed His Return Of Income For The A Y 20 12 2013 On 08 01 2013 Admitting Taxable Income Of Rs 1 90 580 Assessee Having Not Disclosed The Source Of Investment Made In The Papery A Notice U S 148 Was Issued On 04 07 2014 In Response To Which Assessee Requested The A O To Treat The Return File D On 08 01 2013 As Return Filed In Response To The Notice Issued U S 148 Of The Act Thereafter A Notice U S 143 2 Of The Act Was Issued And The Case Details Were Examined 9 The Case Of The Assessee Was That In His Capacity As A Goldsmith He Earned Su Fficient Income For The A Y 2011 2012 He Declared Taxable Income Of Rs 1 69 380 Though For The Prior Years Returns Were Not Filed Since His Income Was Below Taxable Limit It Was Also Submitted 5 That All His Family Members Are Working As Goldsmiths And They Are Also Earning Income Which Is Below Taxable Limits As Such No Returns Were Filed It Was Thus Claimed That A Ll Of Them Put Together There Is Sufficient Accumulated Savings Assessing Offic Er Observed That No Proof Was Produced Evidencing The Accumulated Savings A O Further Observed That Even If The Assessee And His Family Members Are Earning Income On Their Profession The Same Are Sufficient To Run The Family And For Payment Of Emi Agai Nst Vehicle Loan Etc In The Absence Of Any Supporting Evidence Of Accumulated Savings Considering The Over All Facts An Amount Of Rs 3 Lakhs Was Treated As Available To The Assessee And The Balance Of Rs 6 50 Lakhs Was Treated As Unexplained Investm Ent Thus Assessment Was Completed On A Total Income Of Rs 8 40 580 10 In The Case Of Shri Satish Kumar Return Was Filed On 22 03 2014 Admitting The Taxable Income Of Rs 1 62 000 A O Noticed That The Assessee Along With Two Others Have Purcha Sed A Property In Sircilla Village And The Assessees Share Of Investment Works Out To Rs 8 50 Lakhs Rounded Of F But The Sources Of Investment Having Not Been Explained In The Return Of Income Filed For The A Y 2012 2013 A Notice U S 148 Of The Act W As Served On The Assessee On 23 05 2014 In Response To Which The Assessee Stated That The Return Already Filed Can Be Taken As A Return In Response To Notice U S 148 Of The Act Accordingly Notice Was Issued U S 143 2 Of The Act And During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings The Assessee Submitted That He Was Carrying On The Profession As A Goldsmith And Though He Did Not Have Taxable Income For Earlier Years He Had Opening Capital Of Rs 5 15 000 As On 01 04 2009 And Earned Further Income During The Fys 2010 11 2011 12 And 2012 13 And Also Obtained A Loan Of Rs 2 Lakhs From The Sircilla Cooperative Urban Bank Limited And Thus He Had Sufficient Sources To Make Investment 6 11 A O Observed That The Assessee Could Not Produce Any Proof With Regard To The Opening Capital As On 01 04 2009 And Subsequent Earnings The Bank Account Statement Also Does Not Indicate That He Has Any Accumulated Savings Therefore He Rejected The Explanation Of The Assessee However Considering The Fact That He Was Eng Aged As A Goldsmith Which Is Evidenced By Gold Loans Obtained On Several Occasions From Sircilla Cooperative Urban Bank Limited Sources To The Tune Of Rs 3 Lakhs Are Considered As Explained And The Balance Of Rs 5 50 Lakhs Was Added As Unexplained Inv Estment And Thus Assessment Was Completed On A Total Income Of Rs 7 12 000 12 Assessees Challenged The Orders Of The Assessing Officer Before The Ld Cit A By Filing Appeals On 04 11 2015 Though The Facts And Circumstances Are Identical Shri A Jagadeeshwar Shri B Ramesh And Shri C Satish Kumar Challenged The Orders Passed The A O U S 143 3 Read With 147 Of The Act On The Ground That The Assessee S Having Filed The Return S Of Income U S 139 4 Of The Act Without Making An Assessment On The S Trength Of Such Return Of Income The A O Is Not Authorised To Issue Notice U S 148 Of The Act In Other Words Reopening Of Assessment Was Challenged In The Above Mentioned Three Matters However In The Case Of Shri C Srinivas Addition Of Rs 6 50 L Akhs Was Challenged On Merits In The Other Three Matters Also Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Was Challenged In Substance The Addition Of Rs 5 Lakhs In The Case Of Shri A Jagadeeshwar Rs 6 50 Lakhs In The Case Of Shri B Ramesh Rs 5 50 La Khs In The Case Of Shri C Satish Kumar And Rs 6 50 Lakhs In The Shri Ch Srinivas Are Challenged Before The Ld Cit A 13 Ld Cit A Extracted The Arguments Advanced On Behalf Of The Assessee But Without Going Into The Issue Of Validity Of Reopening Of 7 Assessment The Addition Made By The A O Was Confirmed On The Ground That The Ar Could Not Produce Any Evidence Rebutting Th E Conclusions Drawn By The A O Further Aggrieved Assessees Preferred Appeals Before The Tribunal 14 Ld Counsel For The Assessee Raised Preliminary Objection With Regard To Assessment S Made In Respect Of Three Assessees I E Shri A Jagadeeshwar Shri B Ramesh And Shri C Satish Stating That The Assessments Made By Issuing A Notice U S 148 Of The Act Are Not Legal Since The Return S Filed By The Assessee S Are Very Much On Record And The Assessing Officer Ought To Have Issued Notice S U S 143 2 Of The Act To Complete The Assessment S In The Ordinary Course 15 On Merits In The Case Of All The Four Assessees Ld Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Is Excessive And Unreasonable 16 Ld Counsel For The Assessee S Submitted That The Assessees Herein Filed Their Returns Of Income Before The End Of March 2014 Which Is Within The Period Prescribed U S 139 4 Of The Act In Which Event The Assessing Officer Ought To Have Processed The Same By Issuing A Not Ice U S 143 2 Of The Act When The Return Of Income Is Subsisting He Ought Not To Have Taken Recourse To Issu Ance Of Notice U S 148 And Thus The Notice Itself Is Invalid The Notice U S 148 Was Issued On 04 07 2014 In The Case Of Shri Jagadeeshwar And Sh Ri B Ramesh Whereas In The Case Of Shri C Satish A Notice Was Issued On 23 05 2014 Though The Po Sit Ion Is Same In The Case Of Shri C Srinivas Since The Assessee Has Not Raised Such Ground Either Before The Ld Cit A Or Before The Tribunal It Is Not Necessary For The Tribunal To Consider The Correctness Of Reopening Of Assessment In The Case Of Shri C Srinivas 8 17 Ld Counsel For The Assess Ee S Filed A Paper Book Consisting Of 34 Pages And Also A Case Law Paper Book Consisting Of 15 Pages By Adverting My Attention To The Written Submissions It Was Submitted That The A O Did Not Issue Any Notice Of Hearing U S 143 2 Of The Act To Scrutinis E The Return Filed U S 139 4 Of The Act Though A Notice Should Have Been Issued Till 30 09 2014 And Thus The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Initiating The Proceedings U S 147 Of The Act On The Ground That The Income Chargeable To Tax Has Escaped Asse Ssment Is Not In Accordance With Law Since The Assessing Officer Cannot Travel Beyond The Procedure Prescribed Under Law I E He Ought Not Have Bypass Ed The Provisions Of Section 143 2 Of The Act In This Regard Ld Counsel For The Assessee Referred To The Judgment Of Honble Supreme Court In The Case Of Trustees Of H E H The Nizams Supplemental Family Trust Vs Cit 242 Itr 381 Wherein The Honble Court Observed In Connection With The Proceedings For The A Y 1962 63 Th At A Reassessment Notice Can Not Be Issued Unless Return Of Income Already Filed Is Disposed Of In The Aforementioned Decision The Assessee Filed An Application U S 237 Of The Act For Refund Of Tax Deducted At Source And Also Reminded The A O About The Tax Refund W Ithout Respond Ing To The Said Reminder S The A O Initiated Proceedings U S 148 Of The Act Calling Upon The Assessee To File A Return For The A Y 1962 63 Which Triggered The Dispute And Assessee Filed The Return But Thereafter Raised An Objection That The Return Filed Ea Rlier Along With The Refund Application Being Pending The Proceedings Initiated U S 147 Of The Act Are Invalid The Case Of The Assessing Officer On The Other Hand Was That The Return Filed In 1964 Was Disposed Of On 10 11 1965 In This Context The Hig H Court Observed That The Office Note Dated 10 11 1965 Of The A O Shows That There Was A Valid Refund Application Which Has To Be Treated As Return Of Income Filed U S 139 Of The Act And Since The Same Was Disposed Of There Was No Bar To The Reassessment Proceedings For The Same Year When The 9 Matter Has Reached The Honble Supreme Court The Order Of The Honble High Court Was Reversed By Holding That The Noti Ng Of The Income Tax Of Ficer Cannot Be Said To Be An Order Passed Since No Refund Was Granted In The Hands Of The Trustee Or In The Hands Of The Beneficiaries And Thus It Was An Inconclusive Note Where The Ito Left The Matter At The Stage Of Consideration E Ven With Regard T O R Efund This Note Was Also Not Communicated To The Trustees If It Was An Order It Is Appealable U S 249 The Assessing Officer Could Not Be Said To Have Closed The Proceedings Finally So As To Initiate Fresh Proceedings U S 148 Of The Act 1 8 Similar Ly The Assessee Relied Upon A Decision Of The Honble Delhi High Court In The Case Of Cit Vs Ved Co 302 Itr 328 Wherein The Court Observed That For The Purpose Of Initiating Reassessment Proceedings The A O Could Not Have Made Up His Mind That The Income Of The Assessee Has Escaped Assessment While A Valid Return Was Still Pending Before Him On The Same Line Of Reasoning The Honble Delhi High Court In Number Of Other Cases Held That Reopening Of Assessment Without Completing The Regular Assess Ment Is Not Valid And If It Is Only An Attempt To Invoke Provisions Of Section 147 To Enlarge The Time Available For Framing Assessment Ld Counsel For The Assessee Thus Submitted That The Reopening Of Assessment Is Bad In Law On Merits It Was Submitte D That The Assessee S Have Sufficient Sources For Making Investment And Thus No Case Is Made Out For Making Addition U S 69 Of The Act 1 9 On The Other Hand Ld Departmental Representative Submitted That The Assessees Herein Made Huge Investment S In Purchase Of The Property Since The Assessees Did Not Disclose Investment In Purchase Of Property In Their Returns Of Income For The A Y 2012 13 There Is A Reason To Believe That The Income Chargeable To Tax Has Escaped Assessment S Ince Reasons Wer E Properly Recorded By The A O Before 10 Initiating Proceedings U S 148 Of The Act The Same Cannot Be Questioned By The Assessees It Was Also Submitted That The Case Law Relied Upon By The Assessee Are Not Applicable To The Cases On Hand Since Return Alre Ady Filed By The Assessee Was Regularised By Issuing A Notice U S 143 2 Of The Act As Per The Request Of The Assessee And It Is Not A Case Where The Original Return Was Not Processed In Fact The Assessee In Response To The Notice Issued U S 148 Of The Act Requested The A O To Treat The Return Filed U S 139 4 As Return In Response To Notice U S 148 Of The Act And Upon The Request Of The Assessees Notices Were Issued U S 143 2 Of The Act And Hence The Case Law Relied Upon By The Assessee Are Disting Uishable It Was Submitted That The Decision Of The Apex Court In The Case Of Trustees Of H E H The Nizams Supplemental Family Trust Vs Cit Supra Pertain S To The A Y 1962 63 And The Dispute Therein Was With Regard To Refund To Be Granted On The Stre Ngth Of An Application Made U S 237 Of The Act And The Honble Court Was Not Directly Concerned With The Issue On Hand Similarly It Was Submitted That On An Identical Issue Honble Jurisdictional High Court Approved The Action Of The Assessing Officer B Y Observing That When There Are Two Remedies Open To The A O The Discretion Is Left To The Assessing Officer To Opt For One Of The Course S Of Action And Mere Ly Because Assessment Proceedings Were Not Taken Up U S 143 2 Of The Act It Cannot Be Said To Be Illegal In This Regard Honble High Court In The Case Of A Pusa Lal Vs Cit 169 Itr 215 Observed As Under It Is True As Contended By Learned Counsel That The Income Tax Officer Could Have Taken Recourse To The Issuance Of A Notice U S 143 2 And Co Rrected The Assessment Made U S 143 1 By Making An Appropriate Assessment Enquiry U S 143 3 That However Is A Mat T Er For The Income Tax Officer To Choose The Power That Can Be Exercised U S 143 2 To Correct The Assessment Made U S 143 1 Does Not Include Income Tax Officer S Power To Reopen The Assessment U S 147 If The Ingredients Of Section 147 Are Satisfied It Is Open To The Income Tax Officer To Exercise That Power Notwithstanding The Fact That There Are Other Remedies Open To Him Under The Act It Cannot Therefore Be Accepted That The Reassessment U S 148 Is V Itiated Because The Income Tax Officer Failed To Invoke His Power To Correct The Assessment Already Completed U S 143 1 By Issuing A Notice U S 143 2 Of The Act 11 20 Ld Dr Ha S Also Relied Upon The Decision Of Itat Hyderabad Bench In The Case Of Elegant Chemicals Enterprises P Ltd Vs Acit 271 Itr 56 Wherein The Bench Observed That In Order To Make Assessment By Issuing A Notice U S 147 Of The Act It Is Not Necessary For The A O To Show That He Exhausted The Remedy Of Issuing A Notice U S 143 2 Of The Act And Non Exercise Of Option U S 143 2 Of The Act Does Not Exclude The Assessing Officers Power To Reopen The Assessment U S 147 Of The Act In The Case Of Kailash Au To Finance Ltd Vs Acit 32 Sot 80 Luck Trib The Bench Observed That Section 147 Is A Procedure For Assessing Escaped Income And It Has Prescribed Condition For Conferring Jurisdiction On The Assessing Officer Since This Is A Complete Code In Itself If Conditions Laid Down In Section 147 Are Satisfied It Is Not Necessary To Look Elsewhere As To Whether Other Conditions Laid Down In Other Provisions Are Fulfilled Or Not To Appreciate As To Whether The A O Has Assumed Valid Jurisdiction U S 147 In The Aforementioned Case The Bench Noticed That If The Assessee Has Not Stated Correct Income The A O Is Empowered To Issue Notice U S 147 Even Though There Is An Alternative Remedy Of Issuing Notice U S 143 2 Available With The A Sses Sing Officer 2 1 On Merits It Was Submitted That Having Regard To The Financial Position Of The Assessees Herein The A O Was Very Much Liberal In Assuming That Each Of Them Had Sufficient Sources To Make Investment T O The Tune Of Rs 3 Lakhs To Rs 4 5 Lakhs And Thus Supported The Concurrent Findings Of The Tax Authorities 2 2 I Have Carefully Considered The Rival Submissions And Perused The Record It Is Not In Dispute That The Decision Of Andhra Pradesh High Court Supra Which In Turn Was Followed By The Itat H Yderabad Bench Empowers The Assessing Officer To Issue A Notice U S 148 Of The 12 Act If He Is Of The Opinion That Income Escaped Assessment And So Long As The Reason For Reopening Of Assessment Is Not Challenged Merely Because The Return Filed By The Asses Sees Are Pending Issuance Of Notice U S 143 2 Reassessment Notice Cannot Be Challenged Since The Same Returns Were Taken Into Consideration For The Purpose Of Making Assessments U S 143 3 Read With Section 147 Of The Act The Decision Of The Apex Court Supra Merely Focuses On The Issue Of Disposing Of A Refund Application Filed U S 237 Of The Act Particularly In The Wake Of The Fa Ct That The Assessing Officer Claims That It Was Disposed Of And Later On Reassessment Proceedings Were Initiated Whereas Th Ere Is No Such Proof Of Disposing Of That Application However In The Instant Case The Assessee Was Given Full Opportunity And In Response To The Notice U S 148 Of The Act Assessee Stated That The Return Filed Earlier U S 139 4 Of The Act Should Be Tr Eated As A Return In Response To Notice Issued U S 148 And Accordingly A Notice U S 143 2 Was Also Issued And Thereafter Assessments Having Been Made By The Assessing Officer The Case S O N Hand Stand On A Different Footing At Any Rate The Legal Issue S Tands Square Ly Covered In Favour Of The Revenue And Against The Assessee By Virtue Of The Jurisdictional High Court Judgment Supra Therefore I Hold That The Reassessment Proceedings Are Valid In Law 23 As Regards The Addition Made Towards Unexplained Investment In The Case Of All Four Assessees There Is No Evidence On Record To Show That They Had Any Savings From The Past Earnings In Fact They Are Not Regular Income Tax Assessees Having Regard To The Overall Circumstances The Assessing Officer Assume D That They Had Savings To The Tune Of Rs 4 5 Lakhs In The Case Of Shri Jagadeeshwar Rs 3 Lakhs Each In The Case Of Other Assessees 2 4 I Have Carefully Considered The Rival Submissions And Perused The Recor D In The Case Of Shri Jagadeeshwar The Details Of Income For The 13 Assessment Years 2008 09 To 2011 12 Were Filed Which Indicate That The Assessee Has Been Filing The Income Tax Returns It Was Also Submitted That He Had Made Investments Out Of Family Sav Ings Accrued Over The Period Of Time Though It Was Stated That He Has Sold Gold To Make Investment No Evidence Was Produced In That Regard However Having Regard To The Overall Circumstances Of The Case I Am Of The View That An Amount Of Rs 5 Lakhs Can Be Treated As Explained I E Available Out Of Past Savings I Direct The A O To Restrict The Addition To Rs 4 Lakhs Only 2 5 Similarly In The Case Of Shri B Ramesh Having Regard To The Fact That He Owns Agricultural Land Apart From Carrying On Business In The Form Of Running A Tiffin Centre Since Last 16 Years An Amount Of Rs 4 Lakhs Can Be Considered As Available Out Of Past Saving S In Which Event Addition Of Rs 5 50 Lakhs Deserves To Be Treated As Unexplained Investment I Direct The A O Accordingly 2 6 In The Case Of Shri C Srinivas It Was Claimed That All The Family Members Are Goldsmiths But There Is No Proof Of Earning Any Income And None Of Them Are Income Tax Assessees However Having Regard To The Nature Of Trade They Are Enga Ged In Rs 4 Lakhs Can Be Considered As Available To The Assessee For Making Investment In The Property And Accordingly The A O Is Directed To Restrict The Addition To Rs 5 50 Lakhs 2 7 In The Case Of Shri C Satish Kumar It Was Claimed That He Is A Goldsmith Though Assessee Claimed To Have Opening Capital Of Rs 5 50 Lakhs As On 01 04 2009 But There Is No Proof In That Regard And The Bank Account Statements Show That He Has Been Taking Loan From Year To Year He Is Al So Not An Income Tax Assessee Under These Circumstances I Do Not Find Any Justification To Interfere With The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer 14 2 8 In The Result The Appeal Filed By Shri C Satish Kumar Is Dismissed And The Other Three Appeals Ar E Partly Allowed Order Pronounced In The Open Court On 2 9 T H December 2017 S D D Manmohan Vice President Hyderabad Dated 2 9 T H December 2017 Okk Sr Ps Copy To 1 B Narsing Rao Co Chartered Accountants Plot No 554 Road No 92 Jubilee Hills Hyderabad 96 2 Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Karimnagar 3 Cit A 2 Hyderabad 4 Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax 2 Hyderabad 5 Dr Itat Hyderabad 6 Guard File