BYTINTI SRITHIMMAREDDY, GADWAL,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, MAHABUBNAGAR, HYDERABAD

It emerges at the outset that the assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action adding cash seized Rs.5,78,500/- as unexplained. There is hardly any dispute between the parties that the impugned cash had been seized on 23.2.2012 at Govardhanagiri check post, Veepangandla Mandal from the assessee. There is further no quarrel that this assessee has been assessed for having derived commission income in agricultural produce And also that he submitted his explanation attributing the impugned cash payments as payments regarding commission agency business pertaining to 10 farmers have already been confirmed from the latter’s side. Suffice to say; both the lower authorities have held that the same do not inspire any confidence so as to be accepted. This leaves the assessee aggrieved.

We have heard the rival submissions against and in support of the impugned unexplained cash income addition of Rs.5,78,500/- seized from the assessee himself. The fact also remains that he is a duly registered commission agent in an agricultural produce market committee who also brought confirmations of the agriculture produce growers parties during the course of lower proceedings. All this sufficiently indicates that there is every chance of the said cash belonging to formers /growers only which also has not been completely reconciled in the lower proceedings Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate that a net profit element addition of Rs. 1.25 lacs only out AAY: 2012-13 Sri Bytinti Srithimma Reddy, Gadwal of Rs. 5,75,500/- in issue would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets a relief of Rs. 4,53,500/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.