SHRI KARTHIKESHWAR RAMGADA,HUBBALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2), HUBBALLI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1669/BANG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 November 2017AY 2009-102 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal granted partial relief to the assessee, allowing Rs. 2.15 lacs representing the assessee's share in property sale proceeds. No other relief was granted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerned additions made by the AO for cash deposits, excess cash at bank, and alleged unaccounted interest income. The assessee argued for relief based on a property sale.

What were the issues?

The primary issues were the validity of additions made by the AO for unexplained cash deposits, excess bank balance, and alleged unaccounted interest income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH ‘SMC-B’, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER

For Appellant: Shri Tulajappa Kalburgi, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Palani Kumar, Addl. CIT

O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee which is directed against the order of CIT (A) – Hubli dated 05.05.2017 for A. Y. 2009 – 10.

2.

The assessee has raised several grounds but only three issues are involved. First issue is about addition of Rs. 20 Lacs made by the AO in respect of cash deposited by the assessee on 27.08.2008 in bank account maintained with Pragati Grameena Bank. The second issue is about addition made by the AO u/s 69 of Rs. 318,373/- in respect of excess cash at bank as per bank statement of Pragati Grameena Bank & SBM as compared to balance Sheet. The third issue is about addition made by the AO on account of alleged unaccounted interest income of Rs. 84,475/-. This is worth noting that a defect memo was issued pointing out that Respondent’s name mentioned in Form – 36 is incorrect. The name of respondent mentioned in the appeal memo is CIT (A), Hubballi. In spite of this, amended form 36 with correct name of respondent was not filed till the date of hearing on 21.11.2017. The appeal was heard and is being disposed of by this order and I have noted both names as of respondent i.e. the name of CIT (A) as per Form 36 and of the A.O. as per the assessment order.

3.

Learned AR of the assessee made various arguments but at the end, he submitted that the assessee deserves a relief of Rs. 2.15 Lacs as noted by CIT (A) in Para 14 of his order that a property was sold by the assessee lacs along with six brothers for Rs. 15 lacs and the share of the assessee in that sale proceeds was Rs. 2.15 lacs. Learned DR of the revenue supported the orders of the authorities below.

4.

I have considered the rival submissions. I find that in the facts of the present case and in view of the orders of the authorities below and after considering the various arguments made before me, the assessee deserves a relief of Rs. 2.15 lacs being the share of the assessee in the sale proceeds of the land sold by the assessee jointly with his six brothers as noted by the CIT (A) in Para 14 of his order but no other relief is allowable. I order accordingly.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →