VASANTHA LAXMI VEERAPANENI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

“The Rectification Order passed by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer ITO -11 (1), Hyderabad even after objections filed by the Appellant stating that the provisions of Sec 115BBE applies for disputed credits in the Joint Bank account pertains to Appellant husband, V Ramakrishna.

Appeal filed against the disputed additions not yet disposed off by the CIT(Appeals), NFAC. The rectification proceedings should have been dealt with Appeal filed against Assessment Order passed U/s.147 r.w.s.144B 4. The appellant has disclosed of Rs.3,83,500/- during demonetization period. Total Income assessed was Rs.62,54,500/-, which does not include the income returned Rs.3,28,810/- where as self assessment tax paid Rs.4,590/- credit was given. There was no option to disclose the cash credits before demonetization period. Cash credits of Rs.60,00,000/- pertaining to her husband to the period before the demonetization. The 3 ITA.No.1246/Hyd./2024

Responses filed during Assessment proceedings and during Appellate proceedings not considered properly. Rectification order passed in hurry which did not consider the income returned Rs.3,28,810/-in Income Computation Sheet.”

At the outset, there is a delay of 25 days in filing the instant appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition seeking for condonation of delay explaining the reasons. We are satisfied with the reasons furnished by the assessee. We, therefore, condone the delay of 25 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits as under.

In this case, assessment u/sec.147 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act”] for the assessment year 2017-2018 was completed on 24.03.2022 by assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.65,83,310/-. The assessee has filed an appeal against the assessment order before the learned CIT(A) on 19.04.2022 and claimed that the said appeal is pending for 4 ITA.No.1246/Hyd./2024

The assessee filed an appeal against the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.154 of the Act before the learned CIT(A) electronically on 12.07.2023 and 5 ITA.No.1246/Hyd./2024

Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal.

CA K. Hanmandloo, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) has erred in disposing of the appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.154 of the Act without taking into cognizance of the appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.143 r.w.s.147 of the Act dated 24.03.2022, even though, the assessee has challenged the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards cash deposit and unless the learned CIT(A) decided the said appeal and it’s taxability, he cannot dispose of the appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed u/sec.154 of the Act dated 13.06.2023 by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, he submitted that the 6 ITA.No.1246/Hyd./2024

Dr. Sachin Kumar, learned Sr. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, fairly agreed that this appeal may be set-aside to the file of learned CIT(A) with appropriate directions to decide afresh along with the appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act.

We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and the orders of the authorities below. We find that assessee has filed separate appeal against the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act dated 24.03.2022 and challenged consequent additions made towards cash deposit u/sec.69A

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.