KANDURI MARUTHI SHETTY,BELLARY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BELLARY

The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay. The CIT(A)’s order is dated 16.04.2021. Therefore, in the normal circumstances, the appeal ought to have been filed before the ITAT on or before 15.06.2021. However, the appeal has been filed before the ITAT on 19.07.2021. There was a lockdown through out the State of Karnataka during the period March 2021 on account of Covid-19 Pandemic. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had extended the timelines from time to time under various Acts in view the said Pandemic. The CBDT in Circular No.10 of 2021 dated 25.05.2021 had also communicated time lines for filing appeals to the CIT(A) also stands extended. In such circumstances, there is no delay in . Shri Kanduri Maruthi Shetty. filing this appeal. The application for condonation of delay filed by the assessee is only as a matter of abundant caution. Therefore, I proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits.

The solitary issue raised is whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T.Act to the extent of Rs.7.5 lakh being cash deposits in bank account (the Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs.9 lakh).

The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The assessee had deposited an amount of Rs.9 lakh on 13.11.2016 during the demonetisation period in his bank account maintained in Union Bank of India (UBI). The assessee was asked to explain the source of above mentioned cash deposit. The assessee submitted that he is a salaried employee in a private sector with no other sources of income, as such there is no question of earning of any undisclosed income. Further, it was stated that the assessee has made withdrawals of Rs.18,21,700 from 01.04.2013 to 06.11.2013 and the deposit of Rs. 9 lakh made out of savings / balance available out of the withdrawals. It has further stated that the assessee’s grandmother was suffering from cancer and cash was kept for her emergency medical treatment. The assessee also filed cash book and cash flow statement before the Assessing Officer. The contentions raised by the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 27.07.2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act. The A.O. made an addition of Rs.9 lakh u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T.Act.

. Shri Kanduri Maruthi Shetty. 5. Aggrieved by the addition of Rs.9 lakh, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The CIT(A) granted relief of Rs.1,50,000 and sustained the addition of Rs.7,50,000.

Aggrieved by the CIT(A)’s order, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR has filed a paper book enclosing therein the cash flow statement and cash book and the case laws relied on. The learned AR on merits reiterated the submissions made before the Income Tax Authorities.

The learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, supported the order of the CIT(A).

I have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee has raised a ground stating that the order of assessment is bad in law, since notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T.Act was issued by the wrong Assessing Officer. However, during the course of hearing, no contention with regard to the above said issue was raised, hence, the ground relating to the technical issue that no notice u/s 143(2) was issued by the correct Assessing Officer is rejected.

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