9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 153C, therefore, assessment u/s 144 is bad in law.. 2. The CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the ease in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,94,500/- made in assessment.. 3. The CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer have erred in law and facts of the case adding Rs.. 2,73,000/- being cash deposited in Bank on mere suspicion and presumption that it belongs Your Appellant ignoring the deposition of Smt.. U.. Rajyalakshmi.. 4.. The CIT(A) having called for the records and assessment orders of Smt.. U Rajyalakshiui ought to have given an opportunity to verify the same and explain the facts, after considering the same ought to have deleted the addition.. 5.. Your Appellant submits that the cash deposit of Rs.. 21,500/- is out of the income of her late husband Sri.. D.. Krishnamachary, which is below the taxable income, therefore the addition may be deleted.. 6.. Your Appellant submits that the addition is not based on any seized material but based on cash deposited in bank account, the addition is bad in law and may be deleted.. 3.. Ground No.. 1 is related to the issue of not providing the seized material to the assessee well in advance to analyze and file the ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk of Hyderabad, Warangal Main Branch 52111317053 21,500 Total 21,500 Financial Year 2007-08 relevant to A.. Y.. 2008-09 F.. Y.. 2007-08 D.. Krishnamachary State Bank of Hyderabad, Warangal Main Branch 52111317053 50,000 D.. Krishnamachary Axis, Warangal 292010100062286 7,58,000 Total 8,08,000 Financial Year 2008-09 relevant to A.. Y.. 2009-10 F.. Y.. 2008-09 D.. Krsinamachary Axis Bank, 292010100062286 3,67,500 Warangal Total 3,67,500 Financial Year 2009-10 relevant to A.. Y.. 2010-11 F.. Y.. 2009-10 D.. Krsinamachary Axis Bank, Warangal 292010100062286 1,81,500 D.. Krsinamachary Axis Bank, Warangal 910010040762965 6,00,000 D.. Ranganayakamma Axis Bank, Ramnagar, Visakhapatnam 910010043099019 1,49,000 Total 9,30,500 Total deposits for the F.. Ys.. 2005-06 to 2010-11 relevant to A.. Ys 2006-07 to 2011-12 Total Deposits 26,21,000 5. The AO also observed that these deposits were made by her sons Shri D.. Sriramulu and Shri D.. Sampath.. Since the assessee could not explain th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arrive at the peak deposit before the AO to consider the same as income.. Accordingly we set aside the order of the lower authorities and remit the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh consideration, with a direction to give one more opportunity to the assessee before completing the assessment.. The appeals of the assessee for the A.. Ys 2007-08 to 2011-12 on this ground are allowed for statistical purpose.. 9. Ground No.. 4 is related to the contention of the assessee that the CIT(A) ought to have verified the records and the assessment order of Smt.. U Rajya Lakshmi and given an opportunity to the assessee.. During the appeal hearing this ground was withdrawn by the Ld.. AR therefore, this ground is dismissed as withdrawn for the A.. Ys.. 2007-08 to 2011-12.. 10. Ground No.. 5 is related to cash deposit of Rs.. 21,500/- in the account of Late Shri D.. Krishnamachary, This issue is involved for the A.. Y.. 2007-08 to 2009-10 as under : 2008-09 Rs.. 29,000/- 2009-10 Rs.. 42,900/- The assessee explained the sources for the deposit for the A.. Y.. 2007- 08 & 2008-09 as pension deposit and for the A.. Y.. 2009-10 the source was stated to be out of pension and ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal issue involved in this appeal for the A.. Y.. 2009-10 is the expenditure incurred for construction of the house which is contested in this appeal as Ground No.. 5 and 6.. During the search proceedings the AO found that the assessee had renovated the house and incurred the expenditure of Rs.. 18,43,758/- for renovation.. The source was stated to be the money received by her husband out of the amounts received from U Rajya Lakshmi.. The AO has issued several notices but the assessee did not furnish the evidence for the source of the expenditure incurred.. Therefore, the AO made the addition of Rs.. 18,43,758/- as unexplained expenditure.. 16. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A), but no fresh material was placed to support the claim made by the assessee to explain the source which was stated to be received from U Rajya Lakshmi, Shri D.. Sampath or Shri D.. Sriramulu.. The source was also not explained by Shri D.. Sriramulu and Shri D.. Sampath in their returns of income.. There was no confirmation or evidence having received the sums from U Rajya Lakshmi.. Therefore, the Ld.. CIT(A) confirmed the addition.. For ready reference, we extr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
