Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘SMC’ BENCH : Hyderabad
Before: SHRI S.S. GODARA
Date of Hearing : 27/01/2021 Date of Pronouncement : 22/02/2021 O R D E R These assessee’s appeals arise against the separate orders of the CIT(A)-7, Hyderabad dated 02.12.2019 passed in appeal no.284/2016-17 for AY 2010-11, and appeal no.159/16-17 dated 27.09.2019 for A.Y. 2011-12.
Heard Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao representing assessees and Shri Aluru Venkata Rao, DR appearing for department. Case files perused. & 190/H2020 AYs: 2010-11 and 2011-12 Sri Jayant Reddy Marri (HUF)/Shri Jayant Reddy Marri
The former asessee’s first and foremost grievance canvassed in Rs. 10,64,500/- as unexplained cash deposits. Learned counsel is fair enough in not disputing the impugned addition in principle. His only case is that both lower authorities have failed in granting telescoping benefit of capital gains income received in the preceding AY 2009- 10 on account of sale of its capital asset/ land. This clinching aspect has gone unrebutted from department’s side. I therefore deem it appropriate to restore this issue to consider assesse’s telescoping plea as per law in above terms. This issue is allowed for statistical purposes.
Learned counsel next took me to assessee’s substantive grievance challenging CIT(A) disallowing 12% of expenditure claim in computation of capital gain(s). It is not in dispute that the CIT(A) has accepted 88% of the remaining expenditure in principle. The fact also remains that the assessee has failed to file all the necessary details qua the impugned claim. I deem it appropriate in this factual background that 8% lumpsum disallowance instead of 12% in issue would be just and proper with a rider the same shall not be taken as precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. The former assessee’s appeal ITA 189/H/20 for AY 2010-11 is partly allowed in foregoing terms.
Latter assessee’s appeal’s solitary grievance raised seeks to reverse both the lower authorities action treating creditors in bank account of Rs.14,34,500/- as unexplained. Mr. Rao’s only plea during the course of hearing is that the impugned addition involves an amount of Rs.5 lakhs derived from transfer of assessee’s capital asset which has not been considered for telescoping benefit. I therefore restore this issue back to the Assessing Officer to consider assessee’s telescoping plea as per law in & 190/H2020 AYs: 2010-11 and 2011-12 Sri Jayant Reddy Marri (HUF)/Shri Jayant Reddy Marri foregoing terms. The remaining addition of Rs.7,43,517/- already made in CIT(A)’s order as per observations in para 7.3 stands confirmed.
No other argument has been raised before me.
These assessee’s appeals are partly allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.
Order pronounced in Open Court on 22/02/2021.