BANDLAPALLI HARINATH REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(3), HYDERABAD

The assessee has raised the following grounds in his appeal:

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, field his return of income for the AY 2009-10 on 22/01/2010 declaring total income of Rs. 6,61,966/- which includes income from salary of Rs.4,47,482/-, income from house property of Rs. 16,800/- and income from business of Rs.2,97,684/-. Initially, the return of income was processed U/s. 143(1) of the Act and subsequently the case was taken up for scrutiny under CASS. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain the sources for cash deposited in the bank account of Rs. 18,57,200/-. However, before the Ld. AO the assessee could not prove the sources of cash deposits and therefore, the Ld. AO added the total cash deposits of 18,57,000 as unexplained investment and further disallowed the claim of deduction for Rs. 1 lakh under Chapter VIA of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). On appeal, Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the addition made by the Ld. AO and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

At the time of hearing, Ld. AR submitted that the all the relevant documents and the financial statements pertaining to the details of cash deposits, salary income and income from house property were submitted before the First Appellate Authority. However, the Ld. CIT (A) did not consider the paper book filed before him and only gave one opportunity to argue the case before him. Therefore, Ld. AR pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) in order to provide one more opportunity to the assessee in order to prove the source of cash deposits and argue the appeal on merits. On the other hand, Ld. DR vehemently opposed to the submissions of the Ld. AR and strongly relied on the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities.

I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. On examining the facts of the case, I find that the assessee had not complied with the notices issued by the Ld. AO and further could not substantiate his claim. Even before the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee was not prompt enough to cooperate with the proceedings. This lethargic attitude of the assessee is not appreciable. Therefore, I do not find much strength in the arguments advanced by the Ld. AR. However, considering the prayer of the assessee that the Ld. CIT (A) has not considered the paper book filed by the assessee and the appeal was posted only once for hearing in the interest of

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove.