SMT. ANJANI KUMARI VARDHA,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA

PER BENCH:

Both the captioned appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Vijayawada [Ld. CIT(A)] in appeal Nos. 109/CIT(A)/VJA/13014, dated 31/3/2015 and 277/CIT(A)/VJA/2014-15, dated 2/11/2016 arising out of the orders passed U/s. 143(3) of the

2 Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] for the AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12

respectively.

In the first round of proceedings, the appeals were heard on

30/08/2022 and since there was no representation the Tribunal passed

ex-parte order dated 13/10/2022 based on the material available on the

record. Thereafter, the assessee filed a Miscellaneous Petition vide MA

No. 08/Viz/2023 wherein the assessee explained the reasons for non-

appearance before the Hon’ble Tribunal on the date of hearing of the

appeals (ie., 30/08/2022) and pleaded for recalling of the order passed

by the Tribunal dated 13/10/2022. After careful perusal of the reasons

advanced by the assessee as well as the submissions of the Ld. AR, the

Tribunal allowed the MA filed by the assessee and recalled the Tribunal’s

order dated 13/10/2022 vide MA order dated 26/04/2023. Accordingly

these appeals are now being disposed off in the following paras on merits.

an individual, deriving income from other sources filed her return

of income for the AY 2010-11 on 25/01/2012 admitting total

income of Rs. 4,14,580/- and the same was processed U/s.

143(1) of the Act. Subsequently the case was selected for

3 scrutiny under CASS and accordingly statutory notices U/s.

143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the

assessee. Since there was no response from the assessee to the

notices and opportunity letters, summons U/s. 131 were issued

to appear and furnish the required information. Even for

summons, assessee did not appear and later on Mr. P.V. Bhaskar

Sharma, ITP filed power of attorney before the Ld. AO and filed

certain information as called for by the Ld. AO. But thereafter

either assessee or her AR did not respond to the show cause

letters issued by the Ld. AO proposing the additions made.

Considering the assessee’s no response, the assessee proceeded

to complete the assessment based on the material available and

the submissions made before the Ld. AO. Thus, the Ld. AO

completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) and passed assessment

order on 28/03/2013 wherein the Ld. AO made certain additions

viz., Rs. 99,11,162/- on account of unexplained cash deposits;

(ii) disallowance of claim made under Chapter-VIA amounting to

Rs. 14,630/- and (iii) Rs. 9,67,000/- on account of unexplained

credits aggregating to Rs. 1,08,92,792/-. Aggrieved by the

additions made by the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before

the Ld. CIT(A).

4 4. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed certain material in

the form of additional evidences which was refused by the Ld.

AO. The Ld. CIT(A) called for the remand report on the additional

evidence furnished by the assessee. The Ld. AO submitted the

remand report wherein the Ld. AO commented that the assessee

is not entitled to produce any additional evidence since he is not

covered by any of the four clauses laid down in Rule 46A of the

Income Tax Rules, 1961. Even then, the Ld. CIT (A) following the

principles of natural justice, admitted the additional evidence

filed by the assessee and based on the report submitted by the

Ld. AO as well as the material available before him and

considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A)

granted part relief and confirmed the additions to the extent of

Rs. 40,15,000/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the

assessee is in further appeal before us.

Appeal as under:

“1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

5 cross examine the said Durga Prasad which is mandating such an opportunity to an effected assessee.

Any other ground that may be raised at the time of hearing with leave of the Hon’ble Tribunal.”

6 6. At the outset, the Ld. AR drawn our attention to the revised

grounds of appeal filed before us and submitted that the amount

of Rs. 30 lakhs was deposited out of the earlier year realization /

loans repayment. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Ld. AO

has not considered these facts and hence rejected the plea of the

assessee. Further, the Ld. AR also submitted that this amount of

Rs. 30 lakhs is already included in the disallowances made on

account of cash deposits made in the Savings Bank account with

Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that

no separate additions can be made once again. With respect to

realization of debtors even in the earlier years, the Ld. AR

submitted that these amounts were shown as outstanding in the

earlier years and received during the current year by the assessee

and hence cannot be considered as cash credits. The Ld. AR

further pleaded that the loans advanced carried the interest

which was received by the assessee and disclosed while filing the

return of income. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that the

additions made by the Ld. Revenue Authorities be deleted.

Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the Ld.

Revenue Authorities.

7 7. We have heard both the sides and perused the material

available on record as well as the orders of the Ld. Revenue

Authorities. As contended by the Ld. AR, we find from the order

of the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has made following cash

deposits in the Savings Bank accounts with various banks:

Sl Name of the Bank Amount (Rs.) No 1. Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank 58,98,162/- 2. Axis Bank 10,15,000/- 3. Karur Vysya Bank 29,98,000/-

Out of the above cash deposits, the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted Rs.

88,000/- deposited in Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank. Further, the

Ld. CIT(A) has also given relief to the extent of Rs. 29 lakhs in

Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank which was against the cancellation

of Demand Draft. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) also deleted the

addition made by the Ld. AO based on the remand report for an

amount of Rs. 29.98 lakhs. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the

disallowance of Rs. 29,10,000/- in Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank

and Rs. 10,15,000/- in Axis Bank. We find that the Ld. Revenue

Authorities have not twice included the sum of Rs. 30 lakhs while

making the above additions as contended by the Ld. AR and

hence, the Ld. AR’s arguments are rejected. Further, this Bench

of the Tribunal while passing the order in ITA No.215/Viz/2017,

8 dated 13/10/2022 has considered the written submissions made

before the Tribunal and additional evidences produced before the

Ld. Revenue Authorities. In the given facts and circumstances of

the case, we find that it is the principle duty of the assessee to

furnish cogent evidences to substantiate its claim made before

the Tribunal. However, the Ld. AR reiterated the submissions

made before the Ld. Revenue Authorities without providing any

additional documentary evidence before us. We find from the

order of the Ld. CIT (A) that the Ld. CIT(A) has in a detailed

manner discussed about the evidences furnished before him and

the remand report of the Ld. AO as well as the rejoinder by the

assessee for the remand report and has adjudicated the issue

accordingly. Under this situation, we once again reiterate that

the onus is on the assessee to furnish the documentary evidence

in support of her claim which the assessee has failed to do so

even before us. We therefore find no infirmity in the order of the

Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly the revised grounds of appeal raised

by the assessee are dismissed.

that the facts involved in this appeal are identical to that of the

facts of the assessee’s appeal in ITA No.215/Viz/2015 (AY 2010-

9 11). Further, we find that the issues involved in this appeal (ITA No. 207/Viz/2017) are also identical to that of the assessee’s appeal ITA No. 215/Viz/2015 (supra). Therefore, considering the identicalness of the facts as well as the issues involved in both the appeals under consideration, our decision given while adjudicating the assessee’s appeal for the AY 2010-11 mutatis mutandis applies to the assessee’s appeal for the AY 2011-12 also. Thus, the revised grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal for the AY 2011-12 are dismissed.

Pronounced in the open Court on 28th February, 2024.

Sd/- Sd/- (दु�वू� आर.एल रे�डी) (एस बालाकृ�णन) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) (S.BALAKRISHNAN) �या�यकसद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated : 28/02/2024 OKK - SPS

10 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the order forwarded to:-

�नधा�रती/ The Assessee – Smt. Anjani Kumari Varada, D.No. 11-25- 1. 187, Samarangam Chowk, Vijayawada-520 001. राज�व/The Revenue – Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Vijayawada. 2. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, �वशाखापटणम/ DR, ITAT, 5. Visakhapatnam गाड� फ़ाईल / Guard file 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER

Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam