9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 753X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue should have made further enquiries which would reveal the fact that whether the receipts belong to Mr. V. Raja Reddy or not, especially when Mr. V. Raja Reddy belong to the same Ward as that of the assessee - assessee is deriving income from salary and interest from partnership firm concerned along with commission on marriage bureau, which is not a substantial amount – the order of the CIT(A) is upheld that the entire addition made in the hands of the assessee cannot be sustained – Decided against Revenue. - ITA. No. 1754/Hyd/2013 - - - Dated:- 13-8-2014 - Shri B. Ramakotaiah And Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Solgy Jose T. Kottaram For the Respondent : Mr. B. Shanti Kumar ORDER Per Smt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CICI bank wherein deposits of ₹ 77,33,902 was found was the joint account of the assessee and her husband. It was submitted that the assessee had not maintained any books of accounts and hence, the disclosure of the bank account did not arise. It was stated that account was the joint account with her husband Mr. Raja Reddy who was deriving income from commission and brokerage in the business of granites. It was submitted that there was no source for her to deposit such huge amounts and she stated that the deposits were made by her husband into the joint account. Copy of the return of income filed by Mr. Raja Reddy husband of the assessee was furnished before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) forwarded the submissions of the assessee and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sband Sri. V. Raji Reddy was a belated one and requires to be reopened and scrutinised to confirm the veracity of the transactions. The Assessing Officer further maintained that the books of account prepared and produced relating to assessee's husband, reveal that the business was carried on with a stock of ₹ 23,37,336 and corresponding sale of ₹ 21,64,577, whereas the bank account maintained with ICICI bank had deposit of ₹ 77,33,902. The Assessing Officer thus, opined that the assessee's claims need to be rejected and sought for directions to examine the sources for cash deposits in the hands of Sri. V. Raji Reddy. 5. Assessee objected to the remand report in its rejoinder and submitted that unless and until a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utiny assessment and opined that the case be decided based on merits. 8. Ld. CIT(A) observed that the bank account is Joint Account in the names of the assessee and her husband and therefore, the entire credits into the said bank account cannot be treated as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee alone. The Ld. CIT(A) pointed out that the assessee had furnished the certificate from bank indicating the nature of account and the person who was actually operating such account and the information given by the assessee was supported by the affidavits filed by the assessee and her husband. It was pointed out further that the A.O. did not bring any material on record to show that the facts revealed in the affidavits which were filed we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2009 belong to the assessee s husband Mr. V. Raja Reddy alone and further affidavits had been furnished in this regard by both the assessee and Mr. V. Raja Reddy. The bank authorities have indicated that the account was operated by Mr. V. Raja Reddy husband of the assessee and cash and cheque deposits of ₹ 77,33,902 relating to the granite business had been deposited presumably by her husband. Since the assessee has not maintained books of accounts, disclosing the bank account to the department does not arise. The department should have made further enquiries which would reveal the fact that whether the receipts belong to Mr. V. Raja Reddy or not, especially when Mr. V. Raja Reddy belong to the same Ward as that of the assessee. A.O. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
