Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A-SMC”, HYDERABAD
Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A-SMC”, HYDERABAD
BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A. No. 70/HYD/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Sri Chintalapati Srinivas, DCIT, Central Circle-6, HYDERABAD Vs HYDERABAD [PAN: ADHPC9045R] (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri A.V. Raghu Ram, AR For Revenue : Shri T. Madhan, DR Date of Hearing : 05-08-2019 Date of Pronouncement : 09-08-2019
O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M. :
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–11, Hyderabad, dated 15-11-2017, for the AY.2008-09.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, deriving income from salary, from DLF company has not filed the return of income for the AY.2008-09. A Search and Seizure operation u/s.132 of the Income Tax Act [Act] was conducted in the residential premises of assessee on 17-10-2007. Accordingly, notice u/s.148 r.w.s. 153A of the Act was issued on 04-11-2009. In response to the said notice, assessee filed his return of income for the AY.2008-09 on
:- 2 -: ITA No. 70/Hyd/2018
20-11-2009, admitting an income of Rs.27,78,220/-. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 31-12- 2009 with an addition of Rs.2,26,825/- towards ‘unexplained investment’ u/s.69A of the Act and Rs.17,65,000/- towards ‘unexplained cash credits’ u/s.68 of the Act.
2.1. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). After considering the submissions of assessee, Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.2,26,825/- and noticed that assessee has received loans from Shri Sandeep Reddy and Shri Sivaprasad Reddy, NRIs to the extent of Rs.14,65,000/- and 5,00,000/- respectively. Both the loans are amounting to Rs.19,65,000/-. Whereas the AO made addition of Rs.17,65,000/-. Accordingly, Ld.CIT(A) issued notice to the assessee for the enhancement. Since, none appeared before him, the appeals were dismissed by the Ld.CIT(A) with enhancement.
2.2. Aggrieved with the above order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee preferred an appeal before us, by raising the following Grounds:
“1. The order of the learned CIT(A) erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent it is prejudicial to the assessee. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made as unexplained cash deposits by enhancing it to Rs.19,65,000/-. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee has not filed the required documents though has not granted time request for which was made through mail message dt.30-8-2017 to file such documents and thereby erred in enhancing and confirming the addition of Rs.19,65,000/-.
:- 3 -: ITA No. 70/Hyd/2018
The learned CIT(A) further failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant’s only source of income is salary and there cannot be any undisclosed income to make deposits to treat them as unexplained and thus erred in confirming the deposits as unexplained. 5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing”.
Before us, Ld.AR submitted that assessee has received loans from Shri Sandeep Reddy and Shri Sivaprasad Reddy, both are NRIs. With regard to loan taken from Shri Sandeep Reddy, he submitted that assessee does not have good relationship with Shri Sandeep Reddy. Therefore, he could not get confirmation letter in order to submit before the tax authorities and even now, the relationship has not improved, that is the reason why assessee could not submit any confirmation letter from him. With regard to loan taken from Shri Sivaprasad Reddy, he submitted that assessee furnished confirmation letter, which was received through e-mail, which was submitted before the AO and CIT(A). But the same was not accepted for the reason that it was received through e-mail. He submitted that now the assessee has submitted a letter of confirmation from Shri Sivaprasad Reddy, which is placed on record. He submitted that it may be remitted back to the file of AO for proper verification of the confirmation letter.
On the other hand, Ld.DR supported the orders of Revenue authorities and graciously agreed to remit the issue back to the file of AO for verification.
:- 4 -: ITA No. 70/Hyd/2018
Considered the rival submissions and material on record. We find that even though assessee has made five Grounds of Appeal, Ground Nos.1 and 5 are general in nature. However, Ld.AR preferred to submit before us the issue relating to Shri Sivaprasad Reddy, from whom assessee has submitted confirmation letter, confirming the receipt of loan from him. Since it was not submitted before the AO, we deem it fit and proper to remit this issue to the file of AO to verify the confirmation letters submitted by the assessee and we direct the AO to delete the addition with respect to the loan taken from Shri Sivaprasad Reddy, after due verification.
5.1. With regard to loan received from Shri Sandeep Reddy, assessee has not submitted any confirmation letter, reasons best known to assessee. Since there was no confirmation from Shri Sandeep Reddy, we are sustaining the addition made by the AO. Accordingly, Grounds raised by assessee are partly allowed.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 9th August, 2019
Sd/- Sd/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated 9th August, 2019 TNMM
:- 5 -: ITA No. 70/Hyd/2018
Copy to :
Sri Chintalapati Srinivas, C/o. K.Vasant Kumar, A.V. Raghu Ram, P.Vinod & M.Neelima Devi, Advocates, 610, Babukhan Estate, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 2. The DCIT, Central Circle-6, Hyderabad.
CIT(Appeals)-11, Hyderabad.
Pr.CIT(Central), Hyderabad.
D.R. ITAT, Hyderabad.
Guard File.