THOTA SIVA NAGA BHAGYA LAKSHMI,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), VIJAYAWADA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 63/VIZ/2020Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 August 2022AY 2011-126 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities as the assessee failed to provide any material evidence to explain the cash deposits. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee disclosed income under Section 44AD, but the Assessing Officer (AO) estimated income at a higher rate and later added substantial cash and cheque deposits as unexplained income. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits in the bank account were sufficiently explained by the assessee and if the additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 44AD,Section 143(3),Section 263,Section 234A,Section 234B

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: 08.06.2022Pronounced: 23.08.2022

Per Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member :

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘CIT(A)], Vijayawada in Appeal No.81/CIT(A)/VJA/2016-17 dated 24.10.2019 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed her return of income for the A.Y.2011-12 on 29.02.2012 admitting total income of Rs.1,98,000/-. In the return of income, the assessee disclosed gross receipts of Rs.30 lakhs from execution of civil construction contracts and worked out business income at Rs.2,40,000/- computed at 8% of the gross receipts on a presumptive basis as per the provisions of Sec.44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’). The total income was admitted at Rs.1,98,000/- after claiming deduction of Rs.42,000/- under Chapter VIA of the Act. Original assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 26.03.2013 determining the total income at Rs.8,49,880/-. In the said assessment order, the AO estimated the income @12.5% of the gross contract receipts as per the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of K.N.R.Constructions. Subsequently, the Ld.Pr.CIT, Vijayawada initiated proceedings u/s 263 of the Act dated 25.03.2015 and gave direction to the AO to redo the assessment in accordance with law after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ld.AO after issuance of notice to the assessee, completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 on 30.12.2015 determining the total income at Rs.53,56,053/-. In the said order, the AO held that the contract receipts disclosed by the assessee in the return of income represent the contract receipts of her husband, Sri T.Lakshmi Narayana. The AO further held that the assessee failed to prove the sources of the cash deposits of Rs.52,45,000/- and cheque deposits / transfers of Rs.1,10,000/- found credited in her bank account held with State Bank of Patiala and the said deposits in the bank account aggregating to Rs.53,55,000/- required to be treated as unexplained income of the assessee. Further, the interest of Rs.1,053/- credited in the said bank account was also added to the total income as the same was not disclosed in the return of income.

3.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), Vijayawada. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay and also adjudicated the matter on merits. The Ld.CIT(A) has not considered the contentions of the assessee and upheld the assessment order of the Ld.AO.

4.

On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds :

1.

The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in refusing to condone the delay of 162 days in filing the appeal and hold that the appeal is not maintainable.

2.

(a) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in refusing to condone the delay of 162 days in filing the appeal and holding that the appeal is not maintainable. (b) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) decided the appeal even on merits, ought not have dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.

3.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.53,56,053/- made by the assessing officer towards alleged unexplained deposits in the bank account.

4.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in upholding the charging interest of Rs.1,05,112 u/s 234A and Rs.8,55,912 u/s 234B of the Act.

5.

Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing.

5.

The Tribunal has issued notice to the assessee, thereafter many opportunities were given and the case was posted as a last chance, but the assessee did not turn up. On 10.02.2022, Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ld.AR filed a memo stating that he has no instructions from the assessee, therefore, he is withdrawing his vakalat. Inspite of notice served on the assessee, neither the assessee nor her counsel appeared before the Tribunal. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeal based on the material available on record.

6.

It was the submission of the Ld.DR that 263 was initiated and thereafter, after examining the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.AO has passed detailed assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), but she could not substantiate her claim. Thereafter, the Ld.CIT(A) has passed detailed order. He further submitted that before the Tribunal also she has not substantiated her case. Therefore the order passed by the lower authorities to be confirmed.

7.

We have heard the submission of the Ld.DR and considered the material placed on record. It is an admitted fact that there are certain cash deposits, but the assessee could not file any material to explain the cash credits in the bank account. Apart from this, she could not file any evidence to explain the cash deposits. In the absence of any material evidence, we find there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the lower authorities. Therefore, we dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee.

8.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order Pronounced in open Court on 23rd August, 2022. (एस बालाकृष्णन) (दुव्वूरु आर.एल रेड्डी) (S.BALAKRISHNAN) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 23.08.2022 L.Rama, SPS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. ननधधाऩरती/ The Assessee– Smt.Thota Siva Naga Bhagya Lakshmi, D.No.70-50-14A, Santhi Nagar, Payakapuram, Vijayawada 2. रधजस्व/The Revenue – Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), C.R.Buildings, M.G.Road, Vijayawada 3. प्रधान आयकर आयुक्त / The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada

4.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Vijayawada 5. नवभधगीय प्रनतनननध, आयकर अपीलीय अनधकरण, नवशधखधपटणम/ DR,ITAT, Visakhapatnam 6.गधर्ा फ़धईल / Guard file आदेशधनुसधर / BY ORDER

Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam

More judgments on Section 44AD

All 2,222 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44AD →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →