SRINIVAS SASAPU,USA vs. ADIT (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad

श्री विजय पाल राि, उपाध् यक्ष एिं
श्री मिुसूदन सािडिया, लेखा सदस् य के समक्ष ।
BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.459/Hyd/2025
(निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-17)

Shri Srinivas Sasapu,
USA.
PAN:ADPPS0722B

Vs.
ADIT (International Taxation)-2,
Hyderabad.
(Appellant)

(Respondent)

निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri G. Sivasubramanian, C.A.
रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Shri Narender Kumar Naik,
CIT-DR

सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 22/07/2025
घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 08/08/2025

आदेश/ORDER
PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M. :

This appeal is filed by Shri Srinivas Sasapu (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the ADIT (International Taxation)-2,
Hyderabad (“Ld. AO”), dated 15.01.2025 for the A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :

ITA No.459/Hyd/2025 2

Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). On the basis of information received through the insight portal, the Ld. AO issued notice under Section 148 of the Act on 31.03.2023. In response, the assessee filed return of income on 17.04.2023 declaring an income of Rs.10,084/-.
The Ld. AO passed a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) of the Act on 08.03.2024 proposing total income of Rs.2,58,93,982/-.
4. The assessee filed objections before the Learned Dispute
Resolution Panel (“Ld. DRP”). Pursuant to the direction of Ld. DRP dated 10.12.2024, the Ld. AO treated the cash deposit of Rs.26 lakhs in bank account by the assessee as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act and added the same in the hands of the assessee
. Accordingly, the Ld. AO passed final assessment order under Section 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act on 15.01.2025 assessing the total income at Rs.26,10,084/-.
5. Aggrieved with the final assessment order of Ld. AO, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. The learned Authorised
Representative (“Ld. AR”) invited our attention to the bank statement of the assessee with ICICI Bank placed at page no.95 of paper book

ITA No.459/Hyd/2025 4

and submitted that the assessee had drawn cash of Rs.15 lakhs, Rs.9
lakhs and Rs.2 lakhs on 05.03.2014, 06.03.2014 and 11.03.2014
respectively. He further submitted that, the said total cash of Rs.26
lakhs was withdrawn for a proposed land purchase in his hometown, which eventually fell through. As the land dealing could not be materialised, the same cash was deposited in his bank account on 12.06.2015 ( page no.98 of paper book ). The same facts were explained before the revenue authorities also. However, without considering the submission of the assessee the revenue authorities have added the same in the hands of the assessee. It was submitted that there is a clear nexus between the cash withdrawn and cash re- deposited on 12.06.2015. There is no evidence produced by the Revenue, that the withdrawn amount was used for any other purpose.
Therefore, the cash deposit of Rs.26 lakhs is fully explained and cannot be treated as unexplained under Section 68. 6. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld.
DR”) supported the order of the Ld. AO and submitted that there was a time gap of 14 months between the cash withdrawals in March 2014

ITA No.459/Hyd/2025 5

and the re-deposit in June 2015. This create doubt about whether the cash remained unutilised and available for deposit.
7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have gone through the bank statement of the assessee with ICICI Bank placed at page no.95 of paper book and found that the assessee had drawn cash of Rs.15 lakhs, Rs.9 lakhs and Rs.2 lakhs on 05.03.2014, 06.03.2014 and 11.03.2014 respectively.
As submitted by the Ld. AR the said total cash of Rs.26 lakhs was withdrawn for a proposed land purchase in his hometown, which eventually fell through. As the land dealing could not be materialised, the same cash was deposited by the assessee in his bank account on 12.06.2015 (page no.98 of paper book). In our considered view, the assessee has demonstrated a clear nexus between the cash withdrawn and cash re-deposited on 12.06.2015. The only objection raised by the Revenue is the time gap of about 14 months between withdrawal and deposit. However, in absence of any evidence that the cash was used for other purposes, the assessee’s explanation cannot be rejected merely on account of time lapse. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the cash deposit of Rs.26 lakhs made on ITA No.459/Hyd/2025 6

Hyderabad.
Dated: 08.08.2025. * Reddy gp

Copy of the Order forwarded to :

BY ORDER,