DEVANNA RUKMANI,(DECEASED) REPRESENTED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE PRASHANTH ANJANAPPA(SON),BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1), BANGALORE
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE
BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.622/Bang/2023
Assessment year : 2017-18
Devanna Rukmani(Deceased) Vs. Legal Representative Prashanth Anjanappa (Son) The Income-tax Officer, Aged 46 years, No.1091, 23rd Main, Ward-4(3)(1), 23rd Cross, HSR Layout, Raichur. Second Sector, Bengaluru-560 102.
PAN – BJAPR 3442 P APPELLANT RESPONDENT
Assessee by : Shri R Chandrashekar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Parithivel, JCIT (DR)
Date of hearing : 22.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 28.11.2023
O R D E R Per Beena Pillai, Judicial Member
Present appeal arises out of order dated 08/08/2023 passed by NFAC, New Delhi for assessment year 2017-18 on the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding the appellant did not file details before the learned Respondent in the course of assessment proceedings made for the assessment year 2017-2018.
ITA No.622/Bang/2023 Page 2 of 5
Appellant respectfully submits, appellant did file reply, Cash flow statement in the course of Assessment Proceedings, which were not properly considered. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not considering the explanations provided to each of the credit in the bank Account, on the ground books of accounts are not produced. Appellant' submits its income is only Rental income, as such no regular books of accounts are maintained. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)~' failed to appreciate that out of total deposits of Rs.23,70,000/- and the balance is bank transfers.) Explanations offered to each of deposit are not considered while upholding the additions. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the additions made in the order of assessment made for the Asst. Year 2017-2018. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding, when explanations are not clear, the additions require sustainable. 7. Order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not speaking order and it is not said how the decisions relied upon by the Appellant are not applicable. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has not considered the confirmation letter filed by Appellant's son, who is also an assessee in respect of payments made to the appellant (who is the mother) by fund transfer from his bank account. 9. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in considering the loan granted by the bank and which is credited as un-explained credit. 10 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the computation tax u/s 115BBE of the Act - Rs.55,38,909/- 11. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the levy surcharge and Cess on tax computed tax u/s 115BBE of the Act - Rs.14,82,507/- 12. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming interest levied u/s 234A of the Act 10. Order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not sustainable either in law or on facts of the case. – Rs.1,72,656/-
ITA No.622/Bang/2023 Page 3 of 5
Appellant craves leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal to add/delete/modify any ground/s at the time of hearing. Total tax effect – Rs.71,94,072/-“
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and has earned income from house property and income from other sources. She filed her return of income for the year under consideration on 16/10/2017 declaring total income of Rs.20,23,030/-, in which, the income from house property amounts to Rs.19,47,124/- and income from other sources amounts to Rs.2,35,901/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason to verify cash withdrawals during the year. A notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. The notice was issued to the assessee on 24/11/2019 calling upon the assessee to furnish details of the sources of cash deposits. The Ld.AO noted that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.85,20,00/-. The assessee was not able to furnish satisfactory explanation. The Ld.AO added sum of Rs.85,20,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed submissions, details of the amount deposited into the bank in the form of cash deposit, sales, bank transfers. The assesee has also furnished cash flow statement and the copies of the bank pass book accounts to support his contention. However, the Ld.CIT(A) without analysing the details, passed cryptic order. The Ld.CITA) has only observed that cash book and books of account did not co-relate to source of cash deposits has not been established in order to justify the withdrawals and thus dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
ITA No.622/Bang/2023 Page 4 of 5
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. We have perused the submissions advanced by both the light of the records placed before us. 5.1. We note that, the details filed by the assessee has not been appreciated properly. The assessee called upon to establish the source of the cash withdrawals by explaining the cash deposits. Though sufficient details were furnished by the assessee, no verification has been carried out either by the Ld.AO or by the Ld.CIT(A). This in our considered opinion amounts to violation of principle of natural justice. 5.2. In the interest of justice, we remit the entire issue back to the Ld.AO. The Ld.AO is directed to consider the issue and pass a detailed order of the case having regard to the evidences filed on the submissions made by the assessee. We accordingly remand this issue back to the Ld.AO for denovo consideration. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is sent back to the file of AO for denovo consideration. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in court on 28th day of November, 2023
Sd/- Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member
Bangalore, Dated, 28th November, 2023 / vms /
ITA No.622/Bang/2023 Page 5 of 5
Copy to:
The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order
Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore
