LAKSHMI SULOCHANA KUMAPARAJU ,SECUNDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

At the outset, Learned Counsel for the Assessee brought to our notice that there is a delay of 28 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed time limit. Bringing our attention to the affidavit dated 24/07/2018 filed by the assessee wherein the assessee has explained the reason for delay stating that due to severe ill health of jaundice with woman’s gynaec problem, the assessee could not come out of the house and therefore, the delay occurred. On perusal of the assessee’s affidavit and the reasons stated therein, we find there is a reasonable cause and sufficient reason for not filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the stipulated time. Therefore, considering the reasonable cause, we condone the delay of 28 days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits.

The only issue involved in this appeal relates to addition of Rs. 9 lakhs. Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual, engaged in the business of fishy culture and developing of fish tanks. During the year, assessee made time deposits aggregating to Rs. 17,49,221/- and

Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A) it was submitted that the entire addition cannot be made as the expenditure incurred by the assessee, for the purpose of fishy culture has to be considered. CIT(A) has not considered the said contention of the assessee and confirmed the addition made by the A.O. On being aggrieved, assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal by raising the above mentioned grounds of appeal.

Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer made the addition by treating the entire amount received by the assessee as the income of the assessee wherein the assessee has incurred a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as expenditure for earning the said amount and therefore, to that extent the assessee’s claim may be considered.

On the other hand, Learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the lower Authorities.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The assessee is carrying on the business of fishy culture and has not filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2014-15 and therefore, the A.O. has issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, in response to the A.O’s query regarding cash deposit of Rs. 9 lakhs made by the assessee, the assessee submitted that the same was received in connection with the business, but could not furnish the details before the A.O. Having not satisfied with the assessee’s explanation in the absence of sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate its claim, A.O. added the entire income received by the assessee and the decision of the A.O. was confirmed by the CIT(A). We find from the above facts of the case that the assessee, being engaged in the business of fishy culture, has to incur some expenditure towards seeds, fish feeding, labour, power, cost of harvest and transport etc., which in this case is Rs. 5 lakhs as submitted by the assessee. Therefore, considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion, restricting the addition to Rs. 4 lakhs would meet the ends of justice and the A.O. is directed accordingly. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.