T Mahaveerji Hyderabad Hyderabad v. Addl Cit Range 7 Hyderabad Hyderabad

In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad Bench A Hyderabad Before Shri D Manmohan Vice President And Shri S Rifaur Rahman Accountant Member S No Ita No Ay Appellant Respondent 01 2 571 H 13 1423 H 16 2006 07 2007 08 T Saibaba Hyd Pan Acypt 1246 M Income Tax Officer Ward 7 2 Hyd 03 4 1428 1429 H 16 2006 07 2007 08 Tingirkar Saibaba Huf Hyd Pan Aabht 9307 G Do 5 6 572 H 13 1422 H 16 2006 07 2007 08 T Manik Prabhu Hyd Pan Acypt 1245 J Do 7 8 1426 1427 H 16 2006 07 2007 08 Tingirkar Manik Prabhu Huf Hyd Pan Aabht 9305 E Do 9 10 1597 H 16 829 H 17 2006 07 2007 08 T Mahaveerji Hyd Pan Acypt 1248 F Do 11 12 831 832 H 17 2006 07 2007 08 T Mahaveerji Huf Hyd Pan Aabht 9306 H Do 13 1424 H 16 2007 08 Tingirkar Jayashree Hyd Pan Adhpt 1401 A Do 14 1425 H 16 2007 08 Tingirkar Swaroopa Rani Hyd Pan Adhpt 1402 D Do 15 830 H 17 2007 08 T Kalpana Rani Hyd Pan Adhpt 1400 B Do Assessee By Shri S Rama Rao Revenue By Shri V Sreekar Date Of Hearing 03 11 2017 Date Of Pronouncement 15 12 2017 O R D E R Per S Rifaur Rahman A M The Appeals In Ita Nos 571 Hyd 2013 And 1423 Hyd 2016 Are Filed By The Shri T Saibaba In His Individual Capa City And Ita Nos 2 Ita No 571 Hyd 2013 And Others Shri T Sai Baba And Others 1428 1429 Hyd 2016 In The Capacity Of Kartha Huf For Ays 2006 07 And 2007 08 Respectively Similarly Ita Nos 57 2 Hyd 2013 And 1422 Hyd 2016 Are Filed By Shri T Manik Prabhu In His Individual Capacity And Ita Nos 1426 1427 Hyd 2016 In The C Apacity Of Kartha Huf For Ays 2006 07 And 2006 07 Also It A Nos 1597 Hyd 2016 And 829 Hyd 2017 Are Filed By Shri T Mahaveerji In His Individual Capacity And Ita Nos 831 832 Hyd 2017 In The Capacity Of Kartha Huf For Ays 2006 07 2007 08 2 Against The Orders Of Cit A All These Appeals Filed Raising Similar Grounds Of Appeal I E Whether The Income O Ffered By The Assessee On Behalf Of Huf Is Assessable In The Hand S Of Individual Or Not As Issues In All These Appeals Are Materially Identical The Same Were Clubbed And Heard Together And Therefore We Find It Convenient To Dispose Of These Appeals By Way Of A Common Orde R 3 The Other Three Appeals Filed By Smt T Jayashr Ee Smt Swaroopa Rani And T Kalpana Rani Are Directed Agai Nst Orders Of Cit A 10 Hyderabad These Appeals Are Against 1 43 3 Assessments And Since Issues Are Common These Appe Als Were Heard Together And A Common Order Is Passed For The Sake Of Convenience 4 First We Deal With The Issue Of Huf And To Decid E The Issue The Facts Are Culled Out From T Mahaveerji For The Ay 2007 08 In The Case Of Individual As Well As Huf Briefly The Facts Of The Case Are A Survey U S 133 A Of The Act Was Conducted In The Cas E Of M S Mahaveerji And Brothers Commission Agents In Sheep And Goats On 17 01 2007 And Certain Documents And Books Of Accou Nt Were Impounded The Assessee Huf Filed Its Return Of I Ncome For The First Time For The Ays 2005 06 2006 07 And 2007 08 On 31 03 2008 After Survey During The Course Of Survey The Claim Of H Uf Status Was Not Claimed But The Return Of Income Was Filed For Huf The Return Filed 3 Ita No 571 Hyd 2013 And Others Shri T Sai Baba And Others For Ay 2007 08 Was Processed U S 143 1 And Later I T Was Converted Into Scrutiny And Accordingly Notice U S 143 2 Wa S Issued In Order To Verify The Claim Of The Assessee With Regard To Huf Ao Issued A Letter Dated 02 12 2009 To Furnish The Relevant Doc Uments In Support Of The Claim I E Return Of Income Filed If Any B Ank Account Maintained In The Name Of Huf If Any Details Of M Embers And Partition Deed Details Of Assets In The Name Of Hu F Etc In Response To The Above Notice Assessee Had Filed A Letter I N Which It Was Accepted That There Was No Details Of Return Of Inc Ome Filed By The Assessee No Bank Accounts Were Maintained And It W As Claimed That Major Huf Existed Wherein Late T Niranjanjee As Ka Rtha Of Huf Consisting Of T Niranjanjee And His Three Sons Na Mely T Mahaveerji T Manik Prabhu And Shri T Saibaba Af Ter Death Of T Niranjanjee The Major Huf Was Partitioned In The Y Ear 1991 Further It Was Submitted That There Was No Written Partitio N Deed Available And It Was Only An Oral Partition And Details Of Prope Rty Held By The Huf Was Furnished Before Ao 4 1 Ao Did Not Accept The Contention Of The Assesse E And Observed That There Was No Document In Support Of The Existe Nce Of The Huf Submitted By The Assessee And There Was No Document Ary Evidence In Support Of The Moveable Assets Of The Major Huf Even Copies Of Registered Documents Submitted By The Assessee Cont Ains The Details Of Acquisition Of Agricultural Land By The Individu Als And There Was No Discussion About The Existence Of Huf Or Details Of Funds Arranged For The Acquisition Of The Property Accordingly He Re Jected The Claim Of The Assessee For The Huf Status For The Following R Easons 1 The Income Was Never Claimed To Be That Of Huf Not Even During The Course Of Survey Uj S 133 A Or During The Course Of Recording The Sworn Statement Of Assessee 2 The Income Was Never Assessee As That Of Huf 3 Not A Single Document Produced By Assessee Inclu Ding Sale Deeds Purchase Deeds Or Bank Accounts Speak Of Exi Stence Of Huf 4 Ita No 571 Hyd 2013 And Others Shri T Sai Baba And Others 4 The Income Of Members Was Always And Continuousl Y In Successions Assessed In The Hands Of Individual Mem Ber Only 5 The Existence Of Huf Is Not Real Baseless And I S Artificially Created After The Survey And After The Declaration Is Made Only To Lessen The Income Tax Liability And Against The Provisions Of Lt Act 6 There Is No Verifiable And Independent Evidence 7 There Is No Verifiable And Independent Evidence In The Form Of Maintenance Of Separate Books Of Accounts For Bu Siness Of Assesseehuf And Bank Account Of Business Of Assesse E Huf In Support Of Business Carried On In The Status Of Huf 8 In The Statement Recorded During The Course Of S Urvey Uj S 133 A On 17 01 2007 It Was Stated That Business Was Carried On In Individual Status And Also As Partner Of The Fir M Mj S Mahaveerji Brothers There Was No Mention Of Busi Ness Carried On In Huf Status 9 The Assets Admitted In Hu Balance Sheet As At 3 1 03 2006 Were Stated As Owned By Assessee Individual 10 There Is No Evidence Of Existence Of Initial Ca Pital Belonging To Huf Which Was Invested In Business And In Acquis Ition Of Other Movable Immovable Assets 11 When The Property Is Enjoyed All These Days By The Members Of Family Collectively They Should Have Fi Led Only One Huf Return For The Entire Property Of Late T Niran Janji However There Is No Such Return Filed There Is No Evidence Of Partition In The Family At Any Point Of Time The P Roperty Devolved To The Assessee Is His Individual Capacity 4 2 After Rejecting The Above Claims Of The Assesse E The Income Of The Huf Was Assessed Protectively And Income Of The Assessee Was Clubbed In The Hands Of T Mahaveerji Along With Hi S Individual Income Who Filed The Return Of Income Subsequent T O Survey On 31 03 2008 Declaring Income Of Rs 21 50 814 Thi S Case Was Converted Into Scrutiny And Notice U S 143 2 Was I Ssued And Served On The Assessee Ao Noticed That Assessee Had Made A Declaration Of Additional Income Of Rs 80 Lakhs In The Hands Of A Ssessee And His Brothers At The Time Of Survey Assessee Had Not M Ade Any Claim Of 5 Ita No 571 Hyd 2013 And Others Shri T Sai Baba And Others Existence Of Huf And Even At The Date Of Declaratio N Made On 08 02 2007 Only At The Time Of Filing Return On 31 03 2008 Assessee Had Submitted Return Of Income In The Case Of Huf A Nd In Individual Capacity He Opined That This Was Done Only To Red Uce Tax Burden On The Income Declared By The Assessee During The Surv Ey Accordingly The Income Of The Huf Was Quantified Along With The Individual Income And Assessed Substantively Aggrieved With T He Action Of The Ao The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Cit A 5 During The Appellate Proceedings Assessee Reite Rated The Submissions As Made Before The Ao However It Was Claimed That Assessee Has Filed Copy Of The Partition Deed Dated 15 02 1991 Which Clearly Indicates That The Property Fallen To The S Hare Of The Assessee And It Was Claimed There Was Existence Of Huf Ld Ar Contended That Ao Had Not Considered The Partition Deed And A Ssessed The Income Of The Huf In The Hands Of Individual Assess Ee Cit A Forwarded The Submissions Of The Assessee To The Ao For The Remand Report And Ao Submitted The Remand Report On 03 02 2016 A Copy Of Which Was Forwarded To The Assessee On Which Asse Ssee Had Not Rebutted The Findings Of The Ao Even Though Opport Unity Was Extended To Assessee 5 1 Ld Cit A 10 Agreed With The Findings Of Cit A 3 Who Had Passed An Order In The Case Of The Assessee For The Ay 2006 07 Wherein The Existence Of Huf Was Decided That There Was No Huf In Existence By Observing As Under As Could Be Seen From The Information Brought On R Ecord The Ao Has Summarily Rejected The Claim Of The Appellan T That Huf Status Was Alive With Various Activities Undertake N By The Appellant In Huf Status Apart From Carrying On The Similar Activities In Individual Capacities The Appellant On The Other Hand Enumerated The Details For Substantiating The Existence Of Huf For Past Many Years But The Fact Remains That No Returns Were Filed In The Status Of Huf Before 31 03 2008 With The Returns Of Income For Ay 200607 Filed Only On 31 03 2008 And 6 Ita No 571 Hyd 2013 And Others Shri T Sai Baba And Others During The Course Of Survey Taken Place In This Gro Up On 1701 2007 There Was No Reference Made To The Huf S Tatus Thus As Could Be Seen From The Facts Of The Case There Is No Evidence To Show That There Was A Huf Status Existi Ng For The Appellant And All The Activities Are Held To Be Tak En Place In Individual Capacity No Information Was Brought On The Record That The Appellant Have The Huf Status Existence D Uring The Year Under Reference With Special Reference To The Assets Held And Income Generated In The Hands Of Huf Of The App Ellant Under The Circumstances It Is Held That The Ao Has Rightly Brought The Amounts Of Income Admitted In Huf Statu S To Tax In The Hands Of Individual Status Of The Appellant 6 Aggrieved With The Above Order Assessee Preferr Ed An Appeal Before Us Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal 6 1 In The Case Of Huf 1 The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Is Erroneous Both On Facts And In Law 2 The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Erred In Holding That No Huf Was In Existence And That The I Ncome Of The Huf Of Rs 9 71 110 Is Taxable In The Assessment O F Individual And Not In The Assessment Of Huf 3 The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In T Axing The Short Term Capital Gain On Transfer Of Shares And M Utual Funds At The Normal Rates Instead Of At 10 4 The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Erred In Confirming Levy Of Interest U S 234 A 234 B And 234 C Of The Lt Act 5 Any Other Ground That May Be Urged At The Time O F Hearing 6 2 In The Case Of Individual 1 The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Is Erroneous Both On Facts And In Law 2 The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Erred In Holding That No Huf Was In Existence And That The I Ncome Of The Huf Of Rs 9 71 107 Is Assessable As The Income In The Status Of Individual 7 Ita No 571 Hyd 2013 And Others Shri T Sai Baba And Others 3 The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Erred In Confirming Levy Of Interest U S 234 A 234 B And 234 C Of The I T Act 4 Any Other Ground That May Be Urged At The Time O F Hearing 7 Ld Ar Submitted That The Assessing Officer Is N Ot Justified In Mentioning That There Is No Independent Evidence Fo R The Existence Of Huf As There Is Independent Evidence To Show That T He Assessees Father Was Kartha Of The Major Huf And On His Death The Existing Business Assets Were Partitioned Among His Sons And Wife Thus The Family Nucleus Is Proved The Assessing Officer Oug Ht To Have Considered The Fact That The Books Of Account Were Not Maintained Either By The Huf Or By The Individual And Non Mai Ntenance Of The Books Of Account By Itself Negate The Claim Of Huf He Submitted That It Is Correct That The Assessee Carried On The Busi Ness In His Individual Capacity Also Besides Being A Partner In A Partners Hip Firm In His Individual Capacity He Also Carried On Business In The Capacity Of Huf It Is Humbly Submitted That The Assessing Offi Cer During Survey Did Not Question About The Existence Of Huf Or The Activities Carried On In The Status Of Huf In The Circumstances It I S Not Correct For The Assessing Officer To Mention That The Information W Ith Regard To Huf Was Not Mentioned In The Statement Further He Sub Mitted That It Is Incorrect To State That The Assets Admitted In The Huf Balance Sheet As On 31 03 2007 Were Stated As Owned By The Assess Ee In His Individual Capacity The Assets Are Owned By The As Sessee Both In His Individual Capacity And Also As Kartha Of The Huf In Such Circumstances It Is Incorrect To State That The As Sets Are Held By The Individual Alone Ld Ar Submitted That The Assessi Ng Officer Mentioned That There Is No Evidence Of The Existenc E Of Initial Capital Belonging To The Huf It Is Humbly Submitted That T He Returns Of Income Were Filed First Time For The Assessment Yea R 2005 06 And On Onwards In This Regard The Ld Ar Submitted That There Was A Partition Of The Business Of The Huf On 15 2 1991 A Nd As All The Properties Partitioned Were Movables No Registered Document Was 8 Ita No 571 Hyd 2013 And Others Shri T Sai Baba And Others Executed A Document Was However Executed On 15 2 1991 Between The Members Of The Huf Mentioning The Movable Asset S Received From The Family The Same Is Available As A Deducti On As On 01 04 2004 And Thereafter The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income As Huf Admitting The Income Derived From That Year Onwards In The Circumstances It Is Submitted That The Existence O F The Huf Should Not Have Been Doubted By The Assessing Officer And The Assessment Of The Huf Should Have Been Separately Made 8 On The Other Hand Ld Dr Submitted That Assesse E Has Claimed The Huf Status Subsequent To Survey Because During The Course Of Survey Assessee And His Brothers Combinely Disclos Ed Rs 80 Lakhs And In Order To Get Additional Tax Benefit Assesse E Has Filed Return Of Income In The Capacity Of Huf As Well As In Individ Ual Capacity It Is Only An After Thought Further He Submitted That A Ssessee Has Never Disclosed The Existence Of Huf During The Survey No R At The Time Of Making Submissions He Further Submitted That Parti Tion Deed Submitted By The Assessee Is Not Registered And It Appears To Be Prepared Subsequently As There Was No Evidence To T Hat Extent Which Was Not In Existence At The Time Of Survey He Subm Itted That It Was Pertinent To Note That Assessee Has Submitted Befor E The Ao That There Exist Only Oral Partition And There Is No Wri Tten Partition Which Clearly Indicates That These Documents Were Prepare D Subsequently He Submitted That The Findings Of The Revenue Autho Rities Are Proper 9 We Have Carefully Considered The Rival Submissio Ns And Also Perused The Material On Record The Main Plea Of Th E Assessee Is That There Was A Major Huf In Existence From Which The Other Hufs Have Been Formed On Account Of Partition However No Ma Terial Was Placed On Record To Establish That Shri T Niranjanjee Hu F Was In Existence In Fact No Returns Were Filed By The Hu Fs Prior To 31 03 2008 There Is No Evidence On Record To Indic Ate That Major Huf Generated Any Income Though Ld Counsel Place D Before Us A 9 Ita No 571 Hyd 2013 And Others Shri T Sai Baba And Others Copy Of The Alleged Partition Deed Dated 15 02 1991 Without Any Independent Material To Indicate That Major Huf Was In Existence And It Has Generated Income It Is Difficult To Accept The Plea Of The Assessee On The Mere Strength Of Alleged Partition Deed Which Was Not Registered In Fact The Assesse Did Not Even F Ile The So Called Partition Deed Before The Ao But Filed The Same Onl Y Before The Ld Cit A 9 1 Huf Is A Creature Of Law And It Cannot Be Creat Ed By The Act Of Parties There Should Be Ancestral Nucleus Which S Hould Either Be Thrown In To A Common Hotchpot Or It Should Be Pass Ed On The Next Generation In Whose Hands It Becomes Huf Property Income In Which Event It Can Be Claimed That Such Properties And Income Generated Therefrom Would Belong To Huf No Such Ma Terial Could Be Placed Before Us To Accept The Plea Of The Assessee It Is Merely Based On The Strength Of An Unregistered Partition Deed In Fact Huf If Any Has Never Maintained A Separate Bank Accoun T Filed Returns Of Income Or At Least Maintained Separate Books Of Acc Ount Prior To Making A Claim For The First Time Before The Revenu E Authorities As Has Been Stated Earlier Even The So Far Partition Deed Was Placed On Record For The First Time Before The Ld Cit A Su Ch Being The Case The Claim Of The Assessee That There Was A Huf In E Xistence And The Properties Income Derived By The Huf Has Been Passe D On To The Next Generation Cannot Be Accepted 9 2 Section 171 Of The Income Tax Act Refers To The Assessment In The Status Of Huf After Partition Wherein It Is Sta Ted That A Huf Hitherto Assessed As Undivided Shall Be Deemed For The Purposes Of This Act To Continue To Be A Huf Unless There Is A Finding Of Partition Is Recorded Similarly With Regard To Partial To Tal Partition Any Claim Made By The Assessee Requires To Be Verified By The Ao Upon Giving Due Notice To The Members Of The Family Moreover With Regard To Fresh Claim Of Existence Of Huf Without There Bein G Any Assessment 10 Ita No 571 Hyd 2013 And Others Shri T Sai Baba And Others In The Earlier Years Or Proof Of Holding Assets By A Major Huf The Burden Is Heavy Upon Assessees To Satisfy The Ao Th At Assets Were Held By The Major Huf In The Instant Case There W As No Such Evidence On Record It Was Only Subsequent To The S Urvey Operations Assessees Came Out With A Plea That They Were Maint Aining Sheeps And Goats In The Status Of Main Huf Which Were Pas Sed On To The Separated Hufs In Our Considered Opinion Assessee S Miserably Failed To Bring On Record Any Proof Of Existence Of Huf And Its Ancestral Nucleus 9 3 Under The Above Circumstances We Are Of The Vi Ew That Finding Of The Ao As Well As Ld Cit A With Regard To Non Existence Of Huf Deserves Acceptance Accordingly We Hold That The Income Declared By The Hufs Are Assessable In The Hands Of Individu Als Since Ao Had Assessed The Income Of Hufs In The Hands Of The Ind Ividuals Which In Turn Were Accepted By Ld Cit A We Uphold The Or Ders Of Ao On This Count 9 4 However The Income Of The Huf Is Clubbed And Assessed In The Individual Hands The Assessment Of Huf And The Huf Income Was Assessed To Tax Protectively Accordingly The Assessment Made In The Hands Of Huf Is Quashed And The Tax Collecte D In The Hands Of Huf May Be Adjusted Against The Tax Demands Of Indi Viduals 10 In The Result Both The Appeals In The Individu Al Capacity As Well As In The Capacity Of Huf Are Dismissed 11 As The Facts And Grounds Are Materially Identic Al In The Case Of Shri T Saibaba And T Manik Prabhu Both In The In Dividual As Well As Huf Capacity To That Of T Mahaveerji Cases Supra Following The Decision Therein We Dismiss These Appeals Also 11 Ita No 571 Hyd 2013 And Others Shri T Sai Baba And Others 12 Assessee Has Raised Ground No 2 In The Case O F Huf Which Was Not Pressed Accordingly Dismissed 13 In All The Said Appeals There Is A Common Grou Nd Regarding Charging Of Interest U S 234 A 234 B 234 C Chargin G Of Interest Under These Section Are Consequential In Nature Th E Ao Is Therefore Directed Accordingly Ita No 1424 H 16 In The Case T Jayashree For Ay 2 007 08 Ita No 1425 H 16 In The Case Of T Swaroopa For Ay 2007 08 Ita No 830 Hyd 2017 In The Case Of T Kalpana Rani For Ay 2007 08 14 In All The Said Appeals Common Grounds Were Ra Ised Which Are As Follows Except The Quantum Of Addition 1 The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Is Erroneous Both On Facts And In Law 2 The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Offic Er Representing The Deposits Made Into The Bank Accoun T As The Income Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Exp Lanations Submitted 3 The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Erred In Confirming Levy Of Interest U S 234 A And 234 B Of Th E I T Act 15 Ground No 1 Is General In Nature And Ground No 3 Is Regarding Charging Of Interest U S 234 A 234 B 234 C Which I S Consequential In Nature 16 As Regards Ground No 2 The Facts As Taken Fr Om Smt T Jayashree Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of In Come For Ay 2007 08 On 31 03 2008 Admitting Total Income Of Rs 1 57 003 A Survey U S 133 A Was Conducted In The Case Of M S Mahaveerj I Brothers On 17 01 2007 During The Course Of Survey Books Of Ac Count And Documents Were Impounded The Ao Noticed That The A Ssessee Is 12 Ita No 571 Hyd 2013 And Others Shri T Sai Baba And Others Having A Bank Account With Sbh A C No 52021889634 And Andhra Bank A C No Sb 01 00010878 16 1 The Following Credits Were Noticed From The Sb H Puranapul Branch Date Amount Credited Nature Of Credit 20 06 06 Rs 3 00 000 By Cash 31 07 06 Rs 2 40 000 By Transfer 01 08 06 Rs 59 961 By Credit 20 12 06 Rs 45 000 By Transfer 12 02 07 Rs 3 07 545 By Transfer 21 02 07 Rs 56 907 By Cheque Rs 10 09 413 Deposit 16 2 From Andhra Bank Karwan Branch The Following Credits Were Noticed Date Amount Credited Nature Of Credit 03 04 06 Rs 25 000 By Cash 05 04 06 Rs 10 320 By Ecs 08 04 06 Rs 16 840 By Clearing 10 11 06 Rs 56 000 By Transfer 24 11 06 Rs 45 000 By Transfer Rs 1 53 160 16 3 When Enquired Into The Sources For Credits Ma De Into These Bank Accounts The Assessee Submitted Before The As Sessing Officer That The Deposits Represent Withdrawals Of T Sai Ba Ba Huf In Which The Assessee Is A Coparcener And In Support Of The Claim The Assessee Submitted A Letter From Shri Sai Saba Ass Essees Husband And Karta Of T Sai Saba Huf With Regard To The Sou Rces It Was Submitted That The Credits In Bank Accounts Represe Nt Cash Deposited Out Of Cumulative Cash Balances On Hand Loan Taken On Fixed Deposits Pre Closure And Maturity Proceeds Of Fixe D Deposits Amounts Received From Assessees Huf And Stock Brok Er However The Assessing Officer Did Not Accept The Reply Of T He Assessee And Made The Addition For The Following Reasons A The Assessee Has Not Submitted Any Evidence In Support Her Claim That The Deposits In Bank Accounts Repres Ent Withdrawals Of T Sai Baba Huf There Is No Verif Iable And 13 Ita No 571 Hyd 2013 And Others Shri T Sai Baba And Others Independent Evidence In The Form Of Maintenance Of Separate Books Of Accounts For Business Of Assessee Huf And Bank Account Of Business Of Assessee Huf In Support Of B Usiness Carried On In The Status Of Huf Indicating The With Drawals B No Evidence Was Submitted By The Assessee In Su Pport Of Her Reply That The Deposits Represent Cash Deposite D Out Of Cumulative Cash Balance On Hand Loan Taken On Fixe D Deposit Pre Closure Maturity Proceeds Of Fixed Deposits Amounts Received From Asessees Huf Stock Broker 07 As The Assessee Has Not Complied With The Lette R Notice U S 142 1 Issued To Explain The Sources For Credits Of Rs 1 0 09 413 And Rs 1 53 160 Appearing In Assess Ees Bank Accounts With Sbi Puranapul And Andhra Bank Karwa N With Necessary Evidence It Is Deemed That The Assessee Has No Explanation To Offer In Support Of Assessees Claim Of Sources For Deposits In Above Mentioned Bank Accounts Ther Efore The Total Deposits Of Rs 11 62 573 Appearing In Two Bank Accounts Mentioned Above Are Treated As Unexplained Credits Appearing In These Bank Accounts 16 4 Before The Cit A The Assessee Filed Writte N Submissions Wherein The Assessee Reiterated The Stand Taken Bef Ore The Assessing Officer Suggesting That The Sources Were Explained By The Huf Of Shri T Sai Baba And Return Of Income Was Filed By The Hu F It Was Also Mentioned That The Deposits Made Are Through Bankin G Channels And They Do Not Represent Cash Deposits The Written S Ubmissions Were Forwarded To The Assessing Officer For Factual Repo Rt The Assessing Officer Vide Letter Dated 04 02 2016 Submitted That Neither The Assessee Nor The So Called Huf Maintained Any Books Of Account And Whatever Reasons Given For Creation Of Huf Is Only An Afterthought Subsequent To Survey Conducted U S 133 A In January 2007 With Regard To The Sources For Deposits In The Bank Acco Unts The Assessing Officer Mentioned That Except Giving Narr Ation To The Entries No Contra Entries Are Produced Through Ban K Account Of Other Party 16 5 The Cit A Forwarded The Remand Report To The Assessee For Further Comments In Response To That The Assessee Filed Letter Dated 22 02 2016 As Under 14 Ita No 571 Hyd 2013 And Others Shri T Sai Baba And Others During The Remand Proceedings The Assessee Submit Ted The Details Required By The Assessing Officer Vide Lett Er Dated 28 01 2016 Filed Before The Assessing Officer On 29 01 2016 The Assessing Officer In The Remand Report Did Not Comment Upon The Submissions Made By The Assessee The Only Issue Involved In This Appeal Is The Depos Its In The Bank Account The Assessee Submitted That Sri T Sai Baba Husband Of The Assessee Confirmed That The Amounts Relating The Huf Were Deposited With State Bank Of Hyderabad And Andhra Bank Accounts Of The Assessee To This Effec T The Assessee Filed Letter Of Confirmation From Sri T S Ai Baba Huf And Also Filed Copies Of The Returns Of Income File D By Him In The Status Of Huf The Assessing Officer Assessed The Income In The As Sessment Of Huf And Also Included The Income Of The Huf In T He Assessment Of The Individual Therefore In So Far As The Transactions Are Concerned They Are Admitted In Th E Status Of Huf Of Sri T Sai Baba And Were Assessed Both In The Hands Of Individual And Huf Therefore The Said Receipts Ca Nnot Be Brought To Tax In The Assessment Of The Assessee W Ith Regard To The Details Of The Deposits Into The Banks The Assessee Submitted The Details With Reference To Each Of The Deposit The Assessing Officer Did Not Comment Upon The Deposits Made Into The Bank Accounts There Is No Dispute In The Fact That The Income Was Admitted In The Assessment Of Huf Therefore The Assessee Requests The Honble Cit A To Kindly Allow The Appeal As Prayed For 16 6 After Considering The Submissions Of The Asse Ssee And Remand Report Of The Assessing Officer The Cit A Confirm Ed The Addition Made By The Ao Observing As Under Though The Assessee Claimed That The Transactions Were Explained By Huf Of Shri T Sai Saba No Such Detail S Evidences Explanations Were Given Though The Asse Ssee Admitted That The Assessment Year 2007 08 No Cash Flow Statement Was Filed By The Assessee Cash Flow Stat Ement Of The Huf Of Sri Sai Baba Were Also Not Filed Though The Returns Were Filed By The Huf No Details Were Given With Re Gard To The Sources For Deposits In Bank Accounts Even Though The Karta Of Huf I E Shri T Sai Baba Has Bank Account In Hi S Name As To Why These Deposits Were Not Made In His Bank Accou Nt Has Not Been Explained Since The Assessee Did Not Explain The Sources For Deposits Made In The Bank Accounts With State Bank Of Hyderabad And Andhra Bank The Assessing Officer Has 15 Ita No 571 Hyd 2013 And Others Shri T Sai Baba And Others Added These Amounts As Unexplained Credits In Bank Accounts As The Existence Of Huf Has Not Been Established T He Question Of Treating Them As Belonging To The Huf Does Not A Rise In View Of The Above The Addition Made By The Assessing Of Ficer Is Confirmed And These Two Grounds Of Appeal Are Dismi Ssed 17 Aggrieved By The Order Of Cit A The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us 18 Considered The Rival Submissions And Perused Th E Material Facts On Record It Is Noted From The Records That The As Sessee Has No Independent Sources Of Income The Deposits In The Bank Are The Income Of The Family We Find That There Is Only Tw O Cash Deposits And All Other Entries Are Transfers From The Other Acco Unts Or Credits For Closure Of Deposits Accounts Since The Transfers A Nd Credits Are Internal Transfers These Deposits Cannot Be Questi Oned As These Are Verifiable And Established Sources Ao Could Have V Erified From The Bank Itself But Chose Not To Do With Regard To Ca Sh Deposits Of Rs 3 25 000 The Husband Of Assessee Has Submitted T Hat These Are Out Of Family Fund Since We Have Adjudicated The Inco Me Of The Huf Belongs To The Individual There Is Sufficient Fund S Available With The Family To Make Such Deposits It Is Pertinent To No Te That Assessee Does Not Have Any Independent Source Of Income Sou Rce Is Only From The Family Income As There Is Enough Funds Availab Le In The Family To Make Such Deposits We Accept The Contention Of The Assessee And Delete The Addition Made In The Appeals Under Consi Deration 19 As The Issues Are Common In Other Two Appeals For Ay 2007 08 Which Are Relating To Other Family Members The Grounds Raised By The Respective Assessees In Ay 2007 08 Are Allowed 16 Ita No 571 Hyd 2013 And Others Shri T Sai Baba And Others 20 To Sum Up All The Appeals Under Consideration Have Been Disposed Of As Under 20 1 Appeals In Ita No 571 H 13 1423 H 16 572 H 13 1422 H 16 1597 H 16 And 829 H 17 Ita No 1428 1429 H 26 1 426 1427 H 16 And 831 832 H 17 Are Dismissed 20 2 Appeals In Ita No 1424 1425 H 16 And 830 Hy D 2017 Are Allowed Pronounced In The Open Court On 15 Th December 2017 Sd Sd D Manmohan S Rifaur Rahman Vice President A Ccountant Member Hyderabad Dated 15 Th December 2017 Kv Copy To 1 T Saibaba Hyd C O Sri S Rama Rao Advocate Flat No 102 Shriyas Elegance 3 6 643 Street No 9 Himayatnagar Hyderabad 500 029 2 Tingirkar Saibaba Huf Hyd 3 T Manik Prabhu Hyd 4 Tingirkar Manik Prabhu Huf 5 T Mahaveerji Hyd 6 T Mahaveerji Huf Hyd 7 Tingirkar Jayashree Hyd 8 Tingirkar Swaroopa Rani Hyd 9 T Kalpana Rani Hyd 10 Ito Wad 7 2 Hyderabad 11 Cit A Vi Hyderabad 12 Cit Vi Hyd 13 The Departmental Representative I T A T Hyderabad 14 Guard File