Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “A-SMC”, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A-SMC”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year:2013-14 Madanu Peter, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-12(2), PAN: ACQPM 3464 L Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Bhupal Goud Revenue by: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR Date of hearing: 08/09/2020 Date of pronouncement: 10/09/2020 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-1, Hyderabad in appeal No.0139/2017-18/ITO, Ward-12(2), Hyd/CIT(A)-1/Hyd/2018-19, dated 12/3/2019 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 and U/s. 250(6) of the Act for the AY 2013-14.
The assessee has raised the following grounds in his appeal:-
Aggrieved against the order of the Ld. CIT (A) the appellant in appeal before the ITAT.
2. That the Ld CIT (A) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in determining income of the appellant at Rs. 26,00,000 as against declared income of Rs. 2,50,000 in an order of assessment dated 12/3/2019 U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act.
3. That order of assessment has been made without satisfying the statutory preconditions U/s. 143(3) of the Act and therefore the same is illegal and invalid order.
4. That the Ld CIT (A) has erred both in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 23,50,000 representing alleged unexplained cash deposits in the AP Co- operative Bank and Band of India bank account of the appellant and brought to tax U/s. 69A of the Act. However section 69A is not applicable and it is applicable only in the search cases and CIT (A) erred in confirming the same. 5.1. That the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that bank account of the appellant does not constitute books of account and therefore even otherwise addition made by invoking section 69A of the Act is otherwise misplaced, misconceived and untenable. 5.2. That while making the addition the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate the explanation tendered by the appellant that deposits were out of past savings and amount given by son in law who is on death bed for his maintenance and donation purpose and as such sums could not be brought to tax as income of the appellant.
6. That CIT (A) has further erred both in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 23,50,000/- representing unexplained money U/s. 69A of the Act in the course of existing facts of the appellant.
That the ld. CIT (A) has further erred both in law and on facts in assessing the entire cash deposits into bank account either as business receipts or unexplained cash deposits without giving the benefits of adjusting the past withdrawals from the same or another bank account of the appellant which is against the principles of natural justice.
That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred both in law and on facts in levying interest of Rs. 3,84,855/- U/s. 234A of the Act and of Rs. 4,13,905/- U/s. 234B of the Act which are not leviable on the facts of the same case.”
At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before me that the entire amount received by the assessee partly belong to him and partly belong to his relative which was spent for the medical treatment of his relative who expired subsequently due to his illness. He further submitted that the source of the amount deposited in his bank account are as follows:-
Sl Sources Amount No. Rs. 1. Pension from EPF 6,636 2. Interest on fixed deposit 17,797 3. Gross sales from Kiran Shop 15,92,513 as per the return of income filed 4. Sale proceeds of house as 10,00,000 per the POA 5. Gift proceeds to be 18,00,000 distributed as per the gift deed 6. For medical treatment of 14,03,825 shouraiah as a custodian received from him Total 58,20,271/-
It was therefore pleaded that the addition made by the Ld. AO which was further confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) may be deleted. The ld. DR did not have any serious objection for remitting back the matter to the file of the ld. AO for de novo consideration.
I have heard the rival submission and carefully perused the materials on record. Prima facie it appears that the assessee has gathered the amount from various source for the medical treatment of his relative. He has also furnished the details of the source of the medical expenditure incurred by him for treating his relative. Keeping in view of these facts and circumstances of the case and considering the matter sympathetically, in the interest of justice, I am of the view that the assessee should be provided with one more opportunity before the Ld. AO to explain the source of the bank deposit. Accordingly, I hereby remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO for de novo consideration.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open Court on 10th September, 2020.