MAHESH KUDARAVALLI,TENALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TENALI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 234/VIZ/2023Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 April 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)7 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned a one-day delay in filing the appeal. Considering the peculiar facts, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds, deleting the addition made by the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 13,03,000/- in cash during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer treated this as unexplained income, but the assessee claimed it was out of cash withdrawn earlier for his mother's medical treatment.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits made during the demonetization period were sufficiently explained by the assessee as being out of prior cash withdrawals for medical expenses.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE

Hearing: 27/03/2024

Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative [DR] relied on the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities.

5.

We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record as well as the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee’s mother Smt. Kudaravalli Bhavani Devi was undergoing treatment for 6 “Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS)” on various dates and was admitted to the hospital. The Ld. AR has produced her Medical Records in support of his argument. Even though this Bench has taken a view to allow only first cash deposits, out of earlier cash withdrawals, deposited during the demonetization period, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, we are of the view that the cash deposit made by the assessee on various dates was retained by the assessee to pay for various medical expenses of the assessee’s mother due to non-availability of New Notes during the initial demonetization period. We are therefore inclined to allow the grounds raised by the assessee and delete the addition made by the Ld. AO U/s. 69 of the Act considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It is ordered accordingly.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open Court on 04th April, 2024.

1.

Sd/- Sd/- (दुव्िूरु आर एल रेड्डी) (एस बालाकृष्णन) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) (S.BALAKRISHNAN) न्याययक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated :04.04.2024 OKK - SPS 7 आदेशकीप्रतिलिपिअग्रेपिि/Copy of the order forwarded to:- निर्धाररती/ The Assessee–Mahesh Kudaravalli, 19-15-39, Lakshmi 1. Enclave Bose Road, Tenali, Andhra Pradesh – 5322201. रधजस्व/The Revenue – Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tenali O/o. ITO, 2. OPP. Sai Baba Temple, Bose Road, Tenali, Andhra Pradesh – 522201.

3.

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, आयकरआयुक्त (अपील)/ The Commissioner of Income Tax 4. ववभधगीयप्रनतनिधर्, आयकरअपीलीयअधर्करण, ववशधखधपटणम/ 5. DR,ITAT, Visakhapatnam गधर्ाफ़धईल / Guard file 6. आदेशधिुसधर / BY ORDER

Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →