TULJA SINGH MADABALOO,HYDERABAD vs. ITO,, WARD-7(2), HYDERABAD

प्रनत रवीश सूद, जे.एम./PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M.

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)
[“CIT(A)”] National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi dated
08.09.2023, which in turn arises from the order passed by the AO u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 29.11.2019
for the A.Y.2017-18. 2. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds before us :
(i)
The ex-parte assessment order dt.29.11.2019
passed by the Income
Tax
Officer,
Ward-7(2),
Hyderabad, for the assessment year 2017-18 is quite contrary to law, against weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.
(ii)
The petitioner could not represent before the Income Tax Officer, as the Chartered Accountant,
Mr.N.Laxminarayana was not well and was advised complete bed, resulted into ex-parte assessment order.
Further the appeal filed could not be represented before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as the Chartered Accountant, Mr.N.Laxminarayana expired and could not attend the hearing, thus resulted into an ex-parte appeal order.

3
Tulja Singh Madabaloo

5
Tulja Singh Madabaloo

6
Tulja Singh Madabaloo the stated facts and discussions and in the absence of any corroborative evidence or material/submission on records, | find no reason in altering the additions made by the AO. In view of this, the grounds raised by the appellant are dismissed.

7
Tulja Singh Madabaloo

8
Tulja Singh Madabaloo the relevant period was taken unwell and had thereafter expired on 19.02.2020, therefore, for the said reason, the assessee had failed to participate in the proceedings before the lower authorities and produce the aforementioned documents, which have a strong bearing on the issues involved in the present appeal.
8. Per contra, the Ld.DR objected to the admission of the aforementioned additional evidence.
9. We have given our thoughtful consideration and are of the view that as the documents filed by the assessee will have a bearing on the adjudication of the present appeal, and there was justifiable reason as to why the same were not furnished before the lower authorities, therefore, in all fairness and in the interest of justice, admit the same.
10. The Ld.AR submitted that the very addition made by the AO is based on the wrong set of facts. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld.AR submitted that though the AO in his order had observed that the assessee had failed to come forth with any explanation about the cash deposits of Rs. Rs.23,84,240/- made in his bank account No.62039891966 during the demonetization period, but 9
Tulja Singh Madabaloo the fact remained that the cash deposits made during the subject period i.e., 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 aggregated to only Rs.2.84
lakhs. The Ld.AR to buttress his aforesaid claim has taken us through the bank account of the assessee, Page No.9 to 10 of APB.
The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had way back on 04.01.2016 advanced a loan of Rs.10.5 lakhs to Shri Mahesh
Chand, against which, he had received six cheques of Rs.1.75
lakhs each that were deposited/credited in his aforesaid bank account on 09.11.2016, but were thereafter returned/bounced by the bank. The Ld.AR submitted that the aforesaid Shri Mahesh
Chand had thereafter once again handed over six cheques to the assessee, which were deposited/credited in the subject bank account on 22.11.2016, but once again, the same were bounced/returned by the bank for the reason that the signatures did not tally. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee through his advocate has sent a legal notice dated 30.11.2016 to Shri Mahesh
Chand, Page 7 to 8 of APB. The Ld.AR submitted that as the amount aggregating to Rs.21 lakhs comprises of six cheques of Rs.1.75 lakhs each, aggregating to Rs.10.50 lakhs, that were 10
Tulja Singh Madabaloo received by the assessee in two tranches, but were on both the said occasions bounced/returned back by the bank, therefore, the AO had mi irected himself by observing that the said amount received was in the nature of cash deposits made by the assessee in his bank account. As regards the balance amount of cash deposit of Rs.2.82 lakhs made on 10.11.2016, the Ld.AR submitted that the same was sourced out of his accumulated savings, which in turn found its source from his disclosed income from washing/pressing of clothes and rental income, that was disclosed by him in his return of income for the subject year. To sum up, it was the Ld.AR’s claim that as the cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee during the demonetization period i.e.
09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 aggregated to only Rs.2.82 lakhs
(supra), which too was duly explained, therefore, there was no justification for the lower authorities to have held the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act.
11. Apart from that, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had claimed deduction under Chapter VIA for the amount of the tuition fees paid for education of his children, therefore, the same could

11
Tulja Singh Madabaloo not have been disallowed. The Ld.AR to buttress his claim has drawn our attention to the copies of the tuition fee receipts pertaining to his sons, Master Sanjay Singh and Vijay Singh at Page.11 to 18 of APB.
12. Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities.
13. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned authorized representatives of both the parties in the backdrop of the orders of the lower authorities.
14. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact discernible from the record that an amount aggregating to Rs.21 lakhs was deposited in the assessee’s bank account No.62039891966 with State Bank of India, Darusalam Branch, Hyderabad during the demonetization period i.e. from 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 in two tranches viz., (i) six cheques credited/deposited in the bank account of the assessee on 09.11.2016 (received through clearing) of Rs.1.75 lakh each: Rs.10.50 lakhs; (ii) six cheques (clearing) credited/deposited in the bank account by the assessee on 22.11.2016 of Rs.1.75 lakh each : Rs.10.50 lakhs. However, we find that on both the aforesaid

12
Tulja Singh Madabaloo occasions, cheques so received by the assessee were bounced/returned by the bank. Although, it is the claim of the AO that there were cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee, but we find that the facts speak otherwise. As the amount of Rs.21
lakhs (supra) received by the assessee through cheques were bounced/returned back, therefore, we find no reason as to how the same could have been brought within the meaning of unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. As regards the balance amount of Rs.2.82 lakhs, we are of the view that as the assessee had disclosed the returned income of Rs.3.50 lakhs for the subject year, therefore, his claim that the said cash deposit was sourced out of accumulated savings cannot be summarily discarded.
However, at the same time, in the absence of any documentary evidence, which would irrefutably substantiate his said claim, we are of the view that the availability of accumulated savings can safely be taken at Rs.2 lakhs. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations restrict the addition of Rs.23,84,240/- made by the AO to an amount of Rs.84,240/-.

13
Tulja Singh Madabaloo

14
Tulja Singh Madabaloo

आदेशकी प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to:-

आदेशधिुसधर / BY ORDER

Sr. Private Secretary
ITAT, Hyderabad