ITO, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad, Hyderabad v. Sampath Kumar Deshagoni, Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 199/HYD/2016 | 2011-2012
Pronouncement Date: 03-10-2016 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 19922514 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AJXPD7967M
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 199/HYD/2016
Duration Of Justice 7 month(s) 10 day(s)
Appellant ITO, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad, Hyderabad
Respondent Sampath Kumar Deshagoni, Hyd, Hyderabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 03-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 03-10-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 03-10-2016
Next Hearing Date 03-10-2016
Assessment Year 2011-2012
Appeal Filed On 22-02-2016
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A (SMC) : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN VICE PRESIDENT ITA.NO.199/HYD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-9(1) HYDERABAD. VS. MR. SAMPATH KUMAR DESHAGONI HYDERABAD. PAN AJXPD7967M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR REVENUE : MR.A. SITARAMA RAO FOR ASSESSEE : MR. B. SHANTHI KUMAR DATE OF HEARING : 03.10.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.10.2016 ORDER PER D. MANMOHAN V.P. THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A)-VII HYDERABAD AND IT PERTAINS TO THE A.Y. 2011- 2012. 2. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3 53 870 FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE MATTER WAS TAKEN-UP FO R SCRUTINY AND SEVERAL NOTICES/SUMMONS WERE ISSUED BU T IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT RESIDING IN THE ADDR ESS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND INCOME TAX INSPECTOR REPORTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE SHIFTED FROM THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS. THEREFOR E THE ASSESSMENT WAS PROPOSED TO BE COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE MADE CASH DEPOSITS AGGREGATING TO RS.40 67 300 IN THE SAVI NGS ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH AXIS BANK AND THE SOURCE THEREOF COULD NOT BE 2 ITA.NO.199/HYD/2016 MR. SAMPATH KUMAR DESOGNI HYDERABAD. EXPLAINED. THEREFORE THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 68 OF THE ACT. THUS THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON A TOTAL IN COME OF RS.43 19 790. 3. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE CIT(A) T HAT HE WAS DEALING IN USED CARS AND IN THE NORMAL COURS E OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY ASSESSEE DEPOSITED CASH WHICH WAS TAKEN FROM THE CUSTOMERS AND AS AND WHEN CARS WERE PURCHASED THE AM OUNT WAS PAID TO THEM. THEREFORE THE ADDITION REFERABLE TO THE ENTIRE DEPOSIT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 4. LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THOUGH THERE WAS NO EVID ENCE WITH REGARD TO THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT GO ING BY THE FACT THAT THE MONEY WAS DEPOSITED AND WITHDRAWN ONLY ADDITION OF RS.10 37 417 WAS ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED CR EDIT. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE TURNOVER HAS TO BE TAKEN AS RS.74 11 872 AND THE ASSESSEE HAVING DECLARED RS.43 86 970 ON THE BALANCE TURNOVER INCOME AT 20% WAS ESTIMATED. 5. AGGRIEVED BOTH THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE PREFERRED APPEALS. BUT IT APPEARS THAT THE APPEAL PREFE RRED BY THE REVENUE WAS NOT KNOWN TO THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THE APPE AL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE HAD COME-UP FOR HEARING BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL EVEN THE REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE BENCH THAT THERE IS A CROSS-APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENU E. THUS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN-UP FOR HEAR ING WHEREIN THE BENCH OBSERVED THAT ESTIMATION OF COMMISSION AT 15% OF THE TURNOVER IS REASONABLE AND IT HAD UPHELD THE ADDITION TO WARDS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT AT RS.10 37 417 IMPLYING THEREBY TH AT THE UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT WAS NOT SEPARATELY TAKEN INTO 3 ITA.NO.199/HYD/2016 MR. SAMPATH KUMAR DESOGNI HYDERABAD. CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL WHI CH IS NOW POSTED FOR HEARING THE LD. D.R. SUBMITS THAT A SE PARATE ADDITION IS CALLED FOR REFERABLE TO CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT AND IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NO T TO HAVE RESTRICTED THE INCOME AT 20% OF THE DEPOSITS AND THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.30 24 902 SHOULD HAVE BEEN TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. 6. BOTH THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEES APPEAL (ITA.NO.96 /HYD/ 2016 DATED 15.07.2016) HAVING BEEN DISPOSED OF BY ES TIMATING THE INCOME AT 15% OF DEPOSITS SEPARATE ADDITION OF UNE XPLAINED CASH CREDIT CANNOT BE MADE. 7. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE DESERVES TO BE DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03.10.2016. SD/- (D.MANMOHAN) VICE PRESIDENT HYDERABAD DATED 03 RD OCTOBER 2016 VBP/- COPY TO 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 9(1) BLOCK NO.2D I.T. TOWERS A.C. GUARDS HYDERABAD. 2. MR. SAMPATH KUMAR DESOGNI D.NO.12 - 1 - 170/4 FATHULLAGUDA NAGOLE HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(A) - 7 HYDERABAD. 4. PR. CIT - 7 HYDERABAD. 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ITAT A (SMC) BENCH HYDERABAD 6. GUARD FILE.