JAYA PRAKAASH JUMAANI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT.,CIRCLE- 6(1), HYDERABAD
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘SMC‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Manjunatha, G.
ITA No 1011 of 2024 Jaya Prakashg Jumaani
आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SMC‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No. 1011/Hyd/2024 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2017-18 ) Smt.Jaya Prakash Jumaani Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 6(1) PAN:ABAPJ3645B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Assessee (H/O Jaya Prakash Jumaani) राज� व �ारा/Revenue by:: Shri B. Sashi Kant, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 28/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/10/2024 आदेश/ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 09/08/2024 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2017-18.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual filed his return of income for the A.Y 2017-18 on 30/07/2017 declaring loss of Rs.22,91,346/- u/s 54 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The case was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessement proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.1,53,76,654/- u/s 54 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee has filed details of amount invested for purchase of new asset. The Assessing Officer after
Page 1 of 4
ITA No 1011 of 2024 Jaya Prakashg Jumaani
considering the relevant submissions of the assessee observed that out of about amount incurred for improvement to property, the assessee submitted proof only for the payment of Rs.18,23,725/- to the builder in the form of loan account. For the remaining amount of Rs.6,75,652/-, the assessee was unable to explain the source. Since the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the source for the expenditure, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.6,75,652/- u/s 69C of the Act, and brought to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act.
The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority and the learned CIT (A) for the reasons stated in their appellate order, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee where the learned CIT (A) restricted the disallowances of Rs.5,89,652/- and deleted the balance amount of Rs.86,000/-.
Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT (A) is erred in sustaining the disallowances of Rs.5,89,652/- made u/s 69C of the Act, without considering the documents submitted during the assessment and appellate proceedings. Therefore, he submitted that the additions made by the Assessing Officer should be deleted.
The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned CIT (A) submitted that the appellant could not
Page 2 of 4
