Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD
Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN
PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) – 7, Hyderabad, dated 22/08/2018 for AY 2015-16.
Brief facts of the case are, the assessee filed her return of income for the AY 2015-16 on 22/11/2016 declaring income of Rs. 2,55,450/- Subsequently, the case was taken up for scrutiny and 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. The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) by determining the total income at Rs. 5,25,450/-.
When the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), who confirmed the assessment order.
2 ITA No. 1532/Hyd/18 Gangi Reddy Shanthi, Sec’bad.. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.
The only issue raised by the assessee in this appeal is against rate of tax @ 30% levied on the addition made u/s 69 of the Act on the deposit of Rs. 2,70,000/-. The assessee was of the view that the unexplained cash deposit be treated as ‘income from other sources’ instead of taxing the same u/s 69 of the Act. The AO held the view that the explanation offered by the assessee on the cash deposit is not acceptable on the ground that the monies deposited in FY 2014- 15 can never be out of source of withdrawals in FY 2007-08.
5.1 The CIT(A) observed that the assessee failed to establish the source of cash deposit, therefore, the view held by the AO that the same is taxable u/s 69 of the Act is legally correct. He further observed that once the unexplained deposit is taxed u/s 69 of the Act, the same is liable to be taxed at a special rate i.e. @ 30% u/s 115BBE(a) of the Act and not at normal rate.
Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We noticed that assessee is regularly filing return of income and declared income out of vocational and rental income to the extent of Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 3.50 lakhs. On perusal of bank statement for the period 01/04/2012 to 31/03/2015, assessee habitually makes cash deposits and withdraws cash. They are given below: Telangana Grameena Bank Statement of Account Date Details Debit Credit 11/07/12 By Cash 250000 11/07/12 By Cash 100000 02/08/12 To Cash 85000 27/08/12 To cash 190000 29/08/12 To cash 80000 18/10/12 By Cash 50000 23/10/12 To Cash 25000
3 ITA No. 1532/Hyd/18 Gangi Reddy Shanthi, Sec’bad.. 26/10/12 To Cash 25000 03/04/13 By Cash 250000 05/04/13 To Cash 60000 09/04/13 By Cash 15000 18/04/13 By Cash 43000 20/04/13 To Cash 100000 24/04/13 To Cash 50000 07/12/13 By Cash 60000 08/01/14 To Cash 20000 25/03/14 By Cash 244500 07/06/14 By Cash 270000 09/06/14 To Cash 100000 09/06/14 To Cash 200000 10/06/14 To Cash 20000 05/07/14 To Cash 100000 09/01/15 By Cash 100000 10/03/15 To Cash 300000 From the above, it is noticed that on several occasions, assessee deposited cash and withdrew in cash. Considering that assessee is declaring vocational income around Rs. 3 lakhs, assessee has made Rs. 2,70,000/- in cash during this year. Therefore, the human probability may be extended in this case and the deposits may be accepted to be out of the vocational income and we direct the AO to treat the above deposit as income from other sources, not u/s 69. Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee is allowed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open Court on 12th June, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Hyderabad, Dated: 12th June, 2019 kv
4 ITA No. 1532/Hyd/18 Gangi Reddy Shanthi, Sec’bad..
Copy to:- 1) Smt. Gangi Reddy Shanthi, H. No. 1-31-1, Sathyasai Enclave, Manovikas Nagar Posti, Alwal, Secunderabad – 500 009 2) ITO, Ward – 15(1), 5th Floor, ‘D’ Block, IT Towers, AC Guards, Hyderabad – 500 004 3) CIT(A) – 7, Hyderabad. 4) Pr. CIT - 7, Hyd. 5) The Departmental Representative, I.T.A.T., Hyderabad. 6) Guard File