9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 799X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cometax( Appeals)-VI, Hyderabad dated 20.11.2013, for the assessment year 2009-10. Since certain common issues are involved, these appeals are being disposed of with this common consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA No.1312/Hyd/2014-Shri Sama Srinivas Reddy 2. In this appeal, there is a delay of 126 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT. The reasons given by the petitioner is as follows: For the A.Y under consideration, he filed the return of income on 17.11.2009 admitting an income of ₹ 7,09,060. AO completed the assessment u/s 144 of the I.T. Act determining the total income at ₹ 32,82,960. Aggrieved with the order of assessment, the petitioner filed an appeal before the CIT (A)-VI Hyderabad. The said appeal was disposed of vide order in Appeal No.282/2011-12(CIT(A)-VI dated 20.11.2013. The representation of matter before the CIT (A) was entrusted to an Advocate. The appellate order was served on the said Advocate on 4.1.2014. The receipt of the appellate order was not in the knowledge of the petitioner. However, when the TRO issued notice u/s 226(3) of the I.T. Act on 4.6.2014, he came to understand through Tax Recovery Officer that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue back to the AO for necessary verification and remand report. As per the report of AO, the cash deposits are not explainable though there was cash on hand, which was shown to be a meager amount of ₹ 70,180/-. Further, the gross receipts of the business are only ₹ 7,11,026 as per the return of income filed by the assessee as against the amount of ₹ 12,29,026 shown in the revised computation, thereby inflating/increasing the amounts by ₹ 5,18,000. Similarly, it was submitted by the AO that there were no appropriate evidence as regards to the rental income of ₹ 10,07,114/- and agricultural income of ₹ 1,50,000 except the furnishing of computation of rental income and the pass books for agricultural lands. Subsequently, a revised remand report was furnished indicating the contents/entries of one more bank account (Vijaya Bank, Sahebnagar Branch) which was not shown to the department, wherein the total credits were quantified at ₹ 8,80,668/- including the cash deposits of ₹ 94,000. 8. While furnishing the remand report, AO observed that the assessee has shown gross receipts from the business of tent house, shown at increased amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d income of the appellant, being the excess rental receipts not offered for tax. However, such treatment is directed to be as per the outcome of the further verifications of the information on record vis- -vis the information in 26AS. Subject to the above observations, this ground of appeal is treated as partly allowed . 11. Aggrieved, assessee has filed appeal before us. The ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO had considered the deposits only in Andhra Bank account and not Vijaya Bank account. It was further pointed out that only before the CIT (A), assessee had mentioned about the Vijaya Bank account and had filed the details of the same. It was the argument of the ld Counsel that the ld CIT (A) should have deleted the credits of ₹ 8,80,668 with Vijaya Bank instead of directing that amount of ₹ 2,46,208 is to be deleted by the AO after verification of the credits. It was also submitted that the CIT (A) erred in directing the AO to verify the addition of ₹ 3,20,902 in Andhra Bank. 12. It was also submitted by the ld Counsel for the assessee that an amount of ₹ 25,73,902 which has been deposited on various dates in Andhra Bank account a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y decided by the ld CIT (A). There was no advice from the Advocate as to the further course of action against the order of the ld CIT (A) and information regarding the date when such order was served on him. The date of service of the order of the CIT (A) was to be ascertained from the office of the CIT (A). When the petitioner came to know the matter through the notices of the TRO, he decided to change the Counsel. There was a delay on the part of the Advocate in returning the files to the petitioner. The files were returned to the petitioner in the last week of June, 2014. The petitioner, thereafter consulted another Advocate in the first week of July, 2014 and the appeal papers were got prepared on 8.7.2014 as the Advocate was out of station. Therefore, the appeal is being filed on 9.7.2014 with a delay of 126 days. The petitioner humbly submits that the delay is for the reasons submitted above which are beyond the control of the petitioner and is not intentional. The petitioner, therefore, requests the Hon'ble ITAT to kindly condone the delay and pass appropriate orders in the matter . 17. We find the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal are genuine and hence con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst ₹ 4.00 lakhs shown in return of income, it was observed that no such receipts were deposited into ICICI Bank account, while an amount of ₹ 2,46,208 were shown to have been credited by way of cheque, representing the rental receipts into the Vijaya Bank account. It was pointed out in the revised report that out of total deposits of ₹ 16,98,100 into Vijaya Bank, an amount of ₹ 1,74,539 was made in cash, with remaining amounts of ₹ 15,23,561 in cheques which include the rental receipts of ₹ 2,46,208 and the transactions of the said bank account were observed to be not reflected in return of income furnished. It was further pointed out that records were furnished for agricultural lands of 4.14 acres at Duppalli Village, where as per balance sheet, 3.33 acres were shown at Kalvancha village for explaining agricultural income of ₹ 1.50 lakhs. In the rejoinder to the remand reports, assessee submitted that during the year an amount of ₹ 3,71,550 was earned as commission in real estate business in which the receipts were both in cash and cheques, without involving in purchase and sale of any properties. 22. The CIT (A) after discussing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd revised computation which works out to ₹ 7,17,500 and that the said amount is to be assessed as income for the year under consideration. Further, the ld CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 14,51,892 being the deposits made into the Vijaya Bank on the ground that the deposits to the said extent are not properly explained. The CIT (A) ought to have considered the explanation submitted and ought not to have confirmed any part of the addition and ought not to have enhanced the addition made by the AO. 24. It was also submitted by the ld Counsel for the assessee that an amount of ₹ 37,79,001 which has been deposited on various dates in ICICI Bank account are not taxable amount, because the amount of ₹ 37,79,001 is cash on hand as per the books of accounts and includes the income which has been earned for the financial year 2008-09 and earlier years. The assessee also enclosed his cash book and bank statements which indicate that the amount of ₹ 37,79,001 is cash rotated through business. It was therefore, argued that the addition of ₹ 26,66,228 representing the credits into the ICICI Bank account have been confirmed by the CIT (A) with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
