MUNNI BAIGGARI,TIRUPATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), TIRUPATI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1377/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 January 2021AY 2015-164 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the addition of Rs. 5 lakhs was not appropriate, considering the assessee's financial background and the evidence provided. The AO and CIT(A) did not properly verify the explanation offered by the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 5 lakhs in her bank account, claiming it was from the sale of immovable properties. The Assessing Officer (AO) added this amount as unexplained cash deposit, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 5 lakhs as unexplained cash deposit is justified when the assessee provided evidence of sale of immovable properties?

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 “SMC”, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya
For Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Hearing: 15/12/2020Pronounced: 05/01/2021

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “SMC”, HYDERABAD (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Munni Baiggari, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-2(3), PAN: AKKPB 2046 D Tirupati. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Smt. S. Sandhya Revenue by: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR Date of hearing: 15/12/2020 Date of pronouncement: 05/01/2021 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT (A), Tirupati in appeal No. 10026/2018-19/CIT(A)/TPT, dated 10/06/2019 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the AY: 2015- 16.

2.

The assessee has raised four grounds in her appeal and they are extracted herein below for reference:-

“1. The order of the Ld. CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law.

2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in dealing into the issues which are not governed by the guidelines under CASS.

3. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that the addition made of Rs. 5 lakhs by the Assessing Officer cannot be contested as it is an agreed addition. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have deleted the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.”

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual earning income from House Property, Capital Gains and other sources filed her return of income on 18/2/2016 declaring total income of Rs. 2,99,750/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny under CASS and thereafter assessment was completed U/s. 143(3) of the Act on 28/12/2017 wherein the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 5 lakhs towards cash deposited in the bank account along with an addition of Rs. 1,35,100/- towards low drawings. The lone ground raised in the appeal before is with respect to the addition made for Rs.5,00,000/- towards cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, it was observed by the Ld. AO that the assessee had deposited Rs. 5 lakhs on 2/5/2014. On query, the assessee has explained that the same was out of the sale proceeds of her immovable properties. The assessee also produced certain evidence to substantiate the same. However, the Ld. AO brushed aside the submissions of the assessee and opinion that the source of deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs in the bank account of the assessee is not properly explained and therefore made addition of the same U/s. 68 of the Act. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the order of the Ld. AO by agreeing with his view.

4.

At the outset, we do not find much merit in the findings of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. The assessee has her own source of income apart from the income earned by the other members of her family. Considering the financial background of the assessee, I am of the view that the addition of Rs. 5 lakhs made in the hands of the assessee U/s. 68 of the Act is not appropriate. Moreover, from the order of the Ld. AO it is not clear as to for what reason the Ld. AO has not accepted the explanation offered by the assessee with various documentary evidence. The Ld. CIT (A) has also simply followed the findings of the Ld. AO without proper verification. Considering these facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby direct the Ld. AO to delete the addition made for Rs. 5 lakhs in the hands of the assessee as unexplained cash deposit in her bank account.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Pronounced in the open Court on 05th January, 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 →