AYESHA ABID ALI, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(3), HYD., HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 847/HYD/2015Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 April 2021AY 2006-073 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned a 2-day delay in filing the appeal. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify the additional evidence submitted by the assessee regarding the source of the cash credit.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged an addition of Rs. 15,39,342/- as unexplained cash credit. The assessee submitted additional evidence, including confirmation letters and receipts, to prove the sum was received from siblings.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash credit addition was justified and whether the assessee's additional evidence regarding the source of funds should be considered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

Hearing: 08/03/2021Pronounced: 07/04/2021

This assessee’s appeal for AY.2006-07 arises from the CIT(A)-4, Hyderabad’s order dated 13/03/2015 passed in appeal No.0433/2014-15/ITO Ward 6(3)/CIT(A)-4/Hyd/2014-15, in proceedings u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’].

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

We notice at the outset that the assessee’s instant appeal suffers from 2 days delay in filing stated to be attributable to various miscellaneous reasons beyond her control. The Revenue is equally fair in not disputing all of her condonation averments. We thus, condone the delay of 2 days in filing of the instant appeal.

3.

Coming to the merits, it transpires that the assessee’s sole grievance raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the lower authorities action making unexplained cash credit addition of Rs.15,39,342/- in the course of the assessment and affirmed in the CIT(A)’s order. Learned AR invited our attention to the assessee’s petition dated 14.10.2020 inter alia filing confirmation letter(s) dated 4.8.2014 along with receipt(s) dated 26.1.2006, 1.3.2006 and statement of savings a/c and statement of a/c in the corresponding span of time; respectively. Her only case is that the impugned sum had very much come from real sibblings which could not see light of the day in both the lower proceedings.

4.

Learned DR failed to dispute that the assessee’s instant additional evidence very much goes to the root of the matter so far as her claim of having received the impugned sum from sibblings is concerned. Faced with this situation, we deem it fit and proper to restore the assessee’s additional evidence back to the Assessing Officer for his factual verification as per law. The assessee or the learned AR shall now appear before the Assessing Officer on or before 31/08/2021 with all the cogent supportive material at her own risk and responsibility to be followed by three effective opportunities of hearing.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 7th April, 2021.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →