Sri Patancharu Durgadass,, Hyderabad v. ITO,Ward-8(3),, Hyderabad

ITA 722/HYD/2014 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2016

Appeal Details

RSA Number 72222514 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN AJTPP6353K
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 722/HYD/2014
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant Sri Patancharu Durgadass,, Hyderabad
Respondent ITO,Ward-8(3),, Hyderabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-09-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 30-09-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 21-09-2016
Next Hearing Date 21-09-2016
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 22-04-2014
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 722/HYD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SRI PATANCHARU DURGADASS HYDERABAD [PAN: AJTPP6353K] VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-8(3) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI A. V. RAGH RAM AR FOR REVENUE : SHRI K.J. RAO DR DATE OF HEARING : 21-09-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-09-2016 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH A.M. : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF TH E LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III HYDER ABAD DATED 21-02-2014. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUN DS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I II HYDERABAD ALLOWING THE APPEAL ONLY IN PART IS ERRONEOUS AND U NSUSTAINABLE. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE APPEAL IN ENTI RETY. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED I N SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 27 65 383/- OUT OF T OTAL ADDITION OF RS. 59 86 800/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT APART FROM THE AMOUNT GIVEN BY RELATIVE THE APPELLANT HAD SOURCE OF INVESTMENT FR OM AGRICULTURE ACTIVITY AND THEREFORE OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN DUE CRED IT FOR THE SAID SOURCE OF INCOME. I.T.A. NO. 722/HYD/2014 SRI PATANCHARU DURGADASS :- 2 -: 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE REJECTED T HE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT HUGE CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM BA NK ACCOUNT WERE REDEPOSITED INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT AND ACCORDI NGLY OUGHT TO HAVE GRANTED RELIEF IN RESPECT OF SUCH RE-DEPOSITS. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT SU CH HUGE WITHDRAWALS UNLESS PROVED TO BE INVESTED OTHERWISE WERE ALWAYS DEEMED TO BE AVAILABLE FOR BEING RE-DEPOSITED. 4. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN DIRECTING TH E ASSESSING OFFICER TO BRING AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2 LAKHS AS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN THE BUSINESS. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DERIVES INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. HE HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY. 2009-10 ON 31-03-200 9 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 3 09 730/- FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 20-12-2011 U /S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT [ACT] DETERMINED TOTAL INCOME AT R S. 62 96 530/-. THE ONLY ISSUE IN APPEAL RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 59 86 800/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUN TS OF ASSESSEE. AO NOTICED THAT IN THE ICICI BANK ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE CASH DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS. 59 86 800/- WERE MADE DURING THE YEAR. SINCE ASSESSEE DID NOT PROVIDE A PROPER EXPLA NATION REGARDING THE SOURCE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED DEPOSITS T HE AO ADDED ALL THE DEPOSITS AS UNEXPLAINED. 3. DURING THE APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT HE HAD BEEN RUNNING A SHOP AND HAD ALSO BEEN RUN NING THE BUSINESS OF SUPPLY OF BUILDING MATERIALS. DUE TO OVER SIGHT HE HAD NOT DISCLOSED INCOME FROM THESE BUSINESSES. IN ADDI TION HE ALSO OWNS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND HAD NOT DISCLOSED INCOME FROM THAT. IN THIS REGARD HE PRESENTED SOME ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AN D REQUESTED I.T.A. NO. 722/HYD/2014 SRI PATANCHARU DURGADASS :- 3 -: THAT HE MAY BE ALLOWED TO PLACE THAT EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND THAT EVIDENCE TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER RULE 46A. 3.1. THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE FILED AS WELL AS THE PETITION OF ASSESSEE WAS SENT TO THE AO FOR HIS COMMENTS AND REMAN D REPORT. LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT : 4.3 FROM THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE APPELLANT A ND THE REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT IS FOUND THAT THE APPELLA NT HAD BEEN RUNNING A FAIR PRICE SHOP. ALTHOUGH NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DETAI LS OF SALE HAVE BEEN PRESENTED REGARDING THAT SHOP HOWEVER THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS REPORTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD A TURNOVER OF RS. 1 0 72 449/- FROM THE FAIR PRICE SHOP AND FURTHER TURNOVER OF RS. 21 48 968/- FROM THE SUPPLY OF BUILDING MATERIALS. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT THE APP ELLANT PRODUCED TITLE DEEDS WITH RESPECT TO AGRICULTURAL LANDS OF 36.19 ACRES. THE APPELLANT STATED THAT HE HAD AN INCOME OF RS. 2.5 LAKH FROM AGRICULT URE. FURTHER THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM ATM OF RS . 12 55 000/- AND STATED THAT THIS CASH WITHDRAWAL FROM THE ATM WAS D EPOSITED BACK INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT SOME AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED FROM HIS SISTER AS LOAN. 4.4. THE APPELLANT IN HIS COUNTER SUBMISSIONS REITE RATED THAT HE HAD INDEED DEPOSITED THE AMOUNTS BACK IN THE BANK AFTER WITHDRAWING THEM THROUGH ATMS. 4. LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT AN D SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE TURNOVER OF FAIR PRICE SHOP AND MATERIAL SUPPLY AND TO THAT EXTENT GAVE CREDIT. HOWEVER THE LOAN FROM SISTER AND CONTENTION THAT AGRICULTURAL INC OME AND RENTS WERE AVAILABLE WITH ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED. HE ALSO DIRECTED TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME FROM TWO BUSINESSES AT RS. 2 LAKHS AND DIRECTED THE AO TO MODIFY THE ORDER ACCORD INGLY. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF PRESENT PROCEEDINGS DR WAS ASKED TO EXAMINE THE CONTENTION WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED I.T.A. NO. 722/HYD/2014 SRI PATANCHARU DURGADASS :- 4 -: RETURNS OF INCOME IN EARLIER YEARS DECLARING INCOMES MORE SO AGRICULTURAL INCOME STATED TO HAVE BEEN EARNED. ASSE SSEES COUNSEL HAS ALSO AGREED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS AND SUB SEQUENTLY FILED CERTAIN DETAILS. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSIN G THE PAPER BOOK AND OTHER DOCUMENTS PLACED WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES ARE TO BE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS TO BE RESTORED TO AO FOR RE-EXAMINATION OF THE CONTENTIONS. THERE SEEMS TO BE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND RENTAL INCOMES IN BOTH HUF AND INDIVIDUAL STATUS. THE CASH BOOK PLACED IN PAPE R BOOK SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE AO IN REMAND PROCEEDIN GS BUT WAS NOT EXAMINED AT ALL. THE LOAN FROM SISTER AND TRANSAC TIONS OF CASH AND CHEQUE REQUIRE TO BE EXAMINED IN DETAIL ALONG WITH PAST RECORD OF RETURNS FILED AND INCOMES DECLARED. IN VIEW OF TH ESE WE HEREBY SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AO AND CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE E XAMINATION OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS AND CREDITS AND DEBITS IN BANK ACCOUNT INCLUDING CASH WITHDRAWN AND DEPOSITS TO THE FILE OF AO. ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN DUE OPPORTUNITY IN THE PROC EEDINGS TO MAKE SUBMISSIONS. AO IS FREE TO EXAMINE THE ISSUES A ND COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT BASED ON FACTS AND AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. 7. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2016 SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER HYDERABAD DATED 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2016 TNMM I.T.A. NO. 722/HYD/2014 SRI PATANCHARU DURGADASS :- 5 -: COPY TO : 1. SRI PATANCHARU DURGADASS HYDERABAD. C/O. K.VASANTKUMAR A.V. RAGHU RAM ADVOCATES 610 BABUKHAN ESTATE BASHEERBAGH HYDERABAD. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-8(3) HYDERABAD. 3. CIT (APPEALS)-III HYDERABAD. 4. THE CIT-II HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.