VALLURIPALLI NAGARJUN,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 502/HYD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 September 2021AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the complete facts were not properly brought out, with potential cross-entries involving the assessee's associated company. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for a detailed de novo examination.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 1 crore to the assessee's income under Section 68, treating it as an unexplained cash credit. This was based on an excess debit balance in the books of a third party, Sri Prashant Shrimal, in the assessee's name.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 1 crore as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 was justified, considering the complexities of transactions involving the assessee and his associated company.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD

Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Krishna
For Respondent: Shri Venudhar Godesi, DR
Hearing: 17/08/21Pronounced: 01/09/21

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sri Nagarjun Valluripalli, Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Hyderabad. Income Tax, PAN: ABVPV 1912 A Circle-16(2), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri P. Murali Krishna Revenue by: Shri Venudhar Godesi, DR Date of hearing: 17/08/21 Date of pronouncement: 01/09/21 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT (A)-4, Hyderabad in appeal No. 0110/2016-17/ACIT, Cir. 16(2)/CIT(A)-4/Hyd/17-18, dated 13/12/2017 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the AY 2013-14.

2.

The assessee has raised five grounds in his appeal however the crux of the issues is that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO for Rs. 1 Cr invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual earning income from house property and income from other sources filed his revised return of income for the relevant AY on 26/3/2014. Initially the return of income was processed U/s. 143(1) of the Act and thereafter the case was taken up for scrutiny and assessment was completed U/s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30/2/2016 wherein the Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 1 Cr U/s. 68 of the Act.

4.

During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee had disclosed in his statement of affairs that he has received an amount of Rs. 2,30,00,000/- as unsecured loan from Sri Prashant Shrimal in the relevant previous year. However, on examining the books of accounts of Sri Prashant Shrimal it was noticed that an amount of Rs. 1 Cr stood as opening balance in the name of the assessee and further Sri Prashant Shrimal has advance the assessee an amount of Rs. 2,30,00,000/- during the relevant assessment year. Since there was an excess debit balance in the name of the assessee in the book of Sri Prashant Shrimal the Ld. AO treated the same as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act. On appeal the Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the order of the Ld. AO by observing as under: “6. I have carefully considered the assessment order and submissions of the appellant. The Assessing Officer after examining and taking into account of confirmation letters given by Mr. Prashant Shrimal, an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- treated as unexplained since Mr. Prashant Shrimal, has confirmed the loan amount of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- out of Rs.

2,30,00,000/- shown by the appellant. As per the details filed by the appellant through dak on 05-10-2017, the details were verified. As per the details also, the appellant stated that one of his companies MAYBULL received an amount of Rs. 1.25 crores from Mr. Prashant Shrimal and during FY 2011-12, Rs. 25,00,000/- were repaid and so the balance pending of Rs. 1 Cr shown by the appellant in his account. Here it should be noted that the appellant is an individual and the MAYBULL was a private limited company. Both are separate entities. Even though the company MAYBULL was his own company, the lender Mr. Prashant Shrimal has lent amounts to different status i.e., to the appellant and also the company. Therefore, as per the Assessing Officer it is right that this amount of Rs. 1 Cr came through the books of account of the appellant and therefore, as discussed above, this amount to be treated as unexplained cash credit U/s.

68.

Hence, the addition made confirmed.”

5.

At the outset, after hearing the arguments advanced by the Ld. AR, Ld. DR and perusing the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities, we are of the view that the complete facts are not brought out properly because there appears to be certain cross entries in the books of M/s. Maybull Infotech Private Limited wherein the assessee is associated. Therefore, in the interest of justice we are of the view that the matter is required to be remitted back to the file of the Ld. AO for detailed examination of the facts. Accordingly, we hereby remit the entire matter back to the file of the Ld. AO for de novo consideration.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open Court on the 01st September, 2021.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →