PILLI SANTHOSH KRISHNA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,. CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, VISAKHAPATNAM
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE
आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member : Condonation of Delay : These appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]-3 vide Order dated 15.10.2018 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2012- 13 with the delay of 54 days. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay, submitting that Sri P.Nooka Raju, father of the assessee who manages the affairs of the assessee, fell sick and he was advised bed rest
2 I.T.A. No.93-95/Viz/2019, A.Y.2008-09, 2009-10 and 2012-13 Pilli Santosh Krishna., Visakhapatnam
for 2 months. He took all the necessary steps for filing the appeal after he recovered. The assessee submitted that the delay of 54 days in filing the appeal was due to the genuine reasons stated above that were beyond the control of the assessee, which are neither intentional nor deliberate. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. We have heard the Ld.AR and find reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Hence, the delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing. Since the grounds raised in these appeals are related to cash deposits for all the assessment years, except change in figures, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and a common order is being passed for the sake of convenience as under. Facts are extracted from I.T.A.No.93/Viz/2019.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, pursuing higher education during the impugned A.Y.2008-09. A search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) was conducted in the case of Sri Pilli Nooka Raju, father of the assessee and others on 13.07.2011. Certain incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found and seized. Accordingly, a notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued to
3 I.T.A. No.93-95/Viz/2019, A.Y.2008-09, 2009-10 and 2012-13 Pilli Santosh Krishna., Visakhapatnam
the assessee on 02.11.2012 followed by a letter dated 19.08.2013, giving an opportunity to comply with the notice u/s 153C. In response, the assessee filed return of income on 14.02.2014, declaring ‘nil’ income. Subsequently, notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee calling for certain information. But the assessee furnished only the copies of income tax return and bank statements. A final show cause notice was issued to the assessee on 19.03.2014, giving an opportunity of being heard and to submit his objections, if any, on the proposed additions, viz., cash deposits. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee furnished his reply vide letter dated 27.03.2014 stating that he had received amounts through deposits from his close relatives and friends for pursuing higher studies in USA & UK and apply for a VISA to USA & UK. Not being convinced with the explanation of the assessee, the Assessing Officer (AO) treated the amount of Rs.35,69,855/- as unexplained income in the form of cash deposits in the hands of the assessee for the A.Y.2008-09 and accordingly brought to tax.
On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.
4 I.T.A. No.93-95/Viz/2019, A.Y.2008-09, 2009-10 and 2012-13 Pilli Santosh Krishna., Visakhapatnam
On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds :
The order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam is not justified in partly sustaining the addition of Rs.2,09,855/- out of the total addition of Rs.35,69,855/- made by the assessing officer towards unexplained cash deposits. 3. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing. 5. Ground No.1 and 3 are general in nature, which do not require specific adjudication.
Ground No.2 is related to sustaining the addition of Rs.2,09,855/- towards unexplained cash deposits. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had applied for Visa for further studies in USA & UK and his parents had arranged funds into his bank account meant for financial security for the purpose of Visa. The Ld.AR further submitted that the assessee is a student and he has no business income which can be verified from the returns of income and bank statements. The Ld.AR, therefore, pleaded to set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and allow the appeal of the assessee on this ground.
5 I.T.A. No.93-95/Viz/2019, A.Y.2008-09, 2009-10 and 2012-13 Pilli Santosh Krishna., Visakhapatnam
Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly sustained the addition for the amount of Rs.2,09,855/-, which the assessee had withdrawn and for which the assessee could not furnish adequate proof of repaying the same to the lender. Therefore, pleaded to confirm the addition sustained by the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee on this ground.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee had applied for Visa for further studies in USA & UK and pooled up funds from his close relatives and friends through his parents. The assessee produced his bank statements and it is evident that the assessee had arranged Rs.12,00,000/- through State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and Rs.21,60,000/- from Union Bank of India. The amounts borrowed were returned to the lenders through the bank account of his mother. The Ld.CIT(A) sustained the addition of Rs.2,09,855/- which was the cash deposits made in Canara Bank. Though the assessee claimed to have repaid the amount to the lender, he could not furnish adequate proof. Though there is no business income, the onus is on the assessee to explain the cash deposits or repayment of the same to the lenders with adequate proof. The assessee failed to explain the same with cogent
6 I.T.A. No.93-95/Viz/2019, A.Y.2008-09, 2009-10 and 2012-13 Pilli Santosh Krishna., Visakhapatnam
evidence. Hence, we are of the view that there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and uphold the same.
In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th March, 2023.
Sd/- Sd/- (एस बालाकृष्णन) (दुव्वूरु आर.एल रेड्डी) (S.BALAKRISHNAN) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 29.03.2023 L.Rama, SPS
आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. ननधधाऩरती/ The Assessee– Shri Pilli Santosh Krishna, D.No.45-57-10/1/1 Narasimha Nagar, Visakhapatnam 2. रधजस्व/The Revenue – The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax , Central Circle-2, 4th Floor, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, M.V.P.Colony, Visakhapatnam 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Visakhapatnam 4. नवभधगीय प्रनतनननध, आयकर अपीलीय अनधकरण, नवशधखधपटणम / DR,ITAT, Visakhapatnam 5..गधर्ा फ़धईल / Guard file आदेशधनुसधर / BY ORDER
Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam
