KOLLIPAKA BALAIAH,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, WARANGAL

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B-SMC”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1981/Hyd/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Kollipaka Balaiah, vs. ITO, Warangal. Ward – 3, Warangal. PAN – ANJPB9168J

(Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S. Rama Rao Revenue by : Shri Nilanjan Dey

Date of hearing : 03-07-2019 Date of pronouncement : 05-07-2019 ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, J.M.: This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y 2014-15 against the order of the CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad, dated 10.07.2018. 2. Assessee, deriving income from house property and business income, filed his return of income for the A.Y 2014-15 on 28.05.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 2,28,520/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS, accordingly notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act) were issued and served on the assessee. In response, the assessee has not furnished any details or appeared before the A.O. Since, the assessee has not furnished any information, the A.O made addition u/s 68 of the Act with peak cash deposits in

2 ITA.No. 1981/Hyd/2018 Shri K. Balaiah, Warangal. the banks held by the assessee which is in Andhra Bank, Andhra Pradesh Gramin Vikas Bank (APGVB) and State Bank of Hyderabad (SBH). Further, A.O noticed that assessee has not declared any interest income, whereas earned interest income to the extent of Rs. 51,629/-. Accordingly, the A.O made the above additions u/s 68 of the Act to the extent of Rs. 30,25,000/- and interest income to the extent of Rs. 51,629/- and the assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act.

“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 addition of Rs. 30,25,000/- made by the A.O representing the entire cash deposits made into the bank account. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the said amount either represent the business receipts or the redeposits made into the bank account. 4. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing. 5. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR and Ld. DR agreed that assessee has not appeared before the tax authorities and before us the Ld. AR submitted additional evidences in support of the assessee’s claim against the disallowance

3 ITA.No. 1981/Hyd/2018 Shri K. Balaiah, Warangal. made by the A.O u/s 68 of the Act. We deem it fit and proper to remit this issue to the file of the A.O to verify the additional evidences submitted before us. Accordingly, we direct the A.O to verify the claim of the assessee and decide the issue on merit in accordance with law. We direct the assessee also to represent the case before the tax authorities. Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 05th July, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMEBR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Hyderabad, Dated: 05th July, 2019. KRK 1) Shri Kollipaka Balaiah, H. No. 21-20/1, Main Road, cherial, Warangal – 506223. 2) ITO, Ward – 3, Warangal. 3) CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad 4) Pr.CIT-3, Hyderabad. 5) The Departmental Representative, I.T.A.T., Hyderabad. 6) Guard File.