9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... :- 7-8-2019 - Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon ble Judicial Member And Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon ble Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri G.V.N. Hari Advocate. For the Department : Smt. Suman Malik Sr.DR ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad, dated 08/02/2018 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that assessee is an individual, filed his return of income admitting total income of ₹ 1,84,780/- on 30/09/2019. Subsequently, case was taken up for scrutiny under CASS and assessment was completed u/sec. 143(3) by determining total income of ₹ 2,99,154/-. Subsequently, ld. CIT by exercising the powers conferred on him u/sec. 263, called the assessment records and find that the Assessing Officer has not examined in respect of the transactions with Corporation Bank, therefore, he was of the opinion that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and directed the AO to tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not substantiate his claim or prove otherwise . In fact, on perusal of the order u/s.263 passed by the CIT(Rajahmundry), it is seen that not only has repeated opportunity been given to the assessee to explain the matter, which the assessee has chosen not to avail, but also that the issue regarding deposits in the said bank account has also been thoroughly examined and investigated by the CIT (Rajahmundry), while passing the said order u/s.263. The relevant portion of the said order of CIT(Rajahmundry) is reproduced herewith: 10. In response to the show cause notice dated 11-09-2013 fixing the case for hearing on 3009-2013, Shri Majeti Venkata Mutyala Rao, assessee vide letter dated 23-09-2013 received in this office on 30-09-2013 requested for adjournment of hearing for 10 days. Accordingly, the case was fixed for hearing on 15-10-2013. In response to this, neither any one appeared nor any submission made or any request seeking adjournment of hearing was received. However, vide this office letter dated 05-11-2013, the assessee was given a final opportunity of hearing on 22-11-2013, which was received by the assessee on 08-11-2013. In response to this also, neith ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the balance-sheet. Therefore, it is clear that the assessee has done transactions through bank accounts with 0CC account of Andhra Bank, Tanuku and Corporation Bank, Tanuku whereas Andhra Bank account is admitted in the books of account and the Corporation Bank Is not appearing. It is claimed in the notes to the account that the assessee is running a rice business and the turnover admitted is ₹ 48,47,422/- in respect of 4% VAT goods and ₹ 17,54,027 in respect of exempted goods. Therefore, it is clear that the transactions are not disclosed In the books of account and it is for the assessee to prove the source for cash deposits in the bank account maintained with Corporation Bank, Tanuku. It Is further seen that the total purchases admitted by the assessee from Andhra Sugars Limited is ₹ 18,65,105/- out of total purchases of ₹ 74,46,841/-, ₹ 47,94,145/- 4% at goods on ₹ 24,60,969/- (exempted goods). However, the assessing officer erroneously treated the deposits as representing turnover of the assessee and estimated income @5% which is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. These purchases include purchases from Andhra Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the assessment u/sec. 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, ld. CIT by exercising powers conferred on him u/sec. 263, called the records and opined that the Assessing Officer has not properly examined the deposits made in the Corporation Bank which is not disclosed in the return of income. Therefore, ld. CIT opined that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The relevant portion of the order of the ld. CIT is extracted as under:- Though the assessee asked for adjournment vide letter dated 23-092013, the assessee never responded to the subsequent notice issued. Even to the letters issued by the assessing officer during the assessment proceedings also, the assessee never responded. It is seen from the extracts of the bank account held with Corporation Bank in the joint name of the assessee and his wife that there are cash deposits on various dates and there are withdrawals by way of cheques given to Andhra Sugars Limited and ATM card withdrawals and cheques drawn on Anantha Lakshmi Satyavathi Devi Rice Mill, Sri VV Durga Prasad etc. The total deposits in the bank account are ₹ 23,31 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed income @5% which is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. These purchases include purchases from Andhra Sugars Limited during the year. Therefore, the assessing officer is directed to treat the entire amount of deposits appearing in the bank account with Corporation Bank, Tanuku as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the I.T. Act, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. From the above, it is very clear that the ld. CIT directed the Assessing Officer to treat the deposits made by the assessee with the Corporation Bank, Tanuku as unexplained investments u/sec.69 of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued a notice to the assessee. The assessee neither appeared before the Assessing Officer nor filed any written submissions. Therefore, the Assessing Officer by following the directions of the ld. CIT, assessment was completed u/sec. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act, dated 25/03/2015. We find that the assessee has not challenged the order passed by the ld. CIT, therefore order passed by him is attained finality. It is the duty of the Assessing Officer to pass the assessment order as directed by the ld. CIT u/sec. 263. Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
