9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 897X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Amount was part of closing balance as on 31.3.2011 and opening balance as on 01.04.2012 shall also be excluded from impugned addition - As per hon ble Bombay high court s judgement in Ivan Singh vs. ACIT [ 2020 (2) TMI 850 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] holds that the statutory expression previous year incorporated in Sec.68 of the Act has to be taken as the relevant previous year in issue only. We thus direct the Assessing Officer to finalise the consequential computation in foregoing terms. Assessee s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. - ITA No. 12/Hyd/2018 - - - Dated:- 17-2-2021 - Shri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri S. Rama Rao, Adv. For the Revenue : Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR ORDER PER BENCH This assessee s appeal for A.Y.2013-14 arises from Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 [CIT(A)] , Hyderabad s order dated 20.11.2017 passed in case no. 0109/ITO-W-3/WGL/CIT(A)-3/2016-17 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short the Act ]. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee s sole substantive grievance r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t were not explained to the satisfaction of Assessing Officer. b) ₹ 75000/ - claim under the provisions of chapter VIA of the Income tax Act, 1961 was not substantiated by adducing proper evidences 3. The Appellant during the course of assessment proceedings had explained the details of the sources for all the deposits that have appeared. in the bank accounts. The learned assessing officer ignoring the submissions of the appellant added the above referred to two additions terming that they remained unexplained or unsubstantiated. 4. Aggrieved by this action of the assessing officer, your appellant prefers this appeal. V). The findings of assessment order of Assessing Officer are extracted below:- 5. In response to notices issued, assessee and his Authorized Representative, Sri V. Anjaneya Prasad, ITP appeared. During the scrutiny proceedings, the assessee was asked to give details of sources of cash deposits in the bank accounts to the tune of ₹ 63,48,900/- and also to give documentary evidence of claim of ₹ 75,000/- under Chapter VIA. In spite of several opportunities given, there was no response from the assessee. Tie assessee neither a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of income on 30.03.2015 admitting an income of ₹ 2,10,850/- which consists of income from property of ₹ 73,850/ - and income from business of ₹ 2,12,000/-. The appellant considered the receipts from Sushmitha Gardens at ₹ 6,50,000/- and estimated the profit at 8%. He estimated the turn-over from the cloth store at ₹ 20,00,000/- and estimated the profit at 8% which worked out to ₹ 1,60,000/-. The aggregate of ₹ 2, 12,000/was admitted in the return of income filed as income from business. The appellant maintained bank accounts with Kotak Mahindra Bank and State Bank of Hyderabad and with Kotak Mahindra Bank in the joint names of the appellant and his wife. According to the AO, the deposits into the said bank accounts are not explained. The Assessing Officer added ₹ 63,48,900/ - on the ground that such deposits made into the bank accounts are not properly explained. The appellant humbly submits that one account relates to the Joint Account of the appellant with his wife who is also carrying on business in sarees. The turnover reported by her in her return of income was ₹ 24 lakhs. The assessee's mother also is carrying bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hed regarding the claim. Neither the appellant's wife PAN No. nor assessment particulars and bank accounts details were furnished by the appellant. Similarly, the appellant claimed that his mother was also carrying a business activity in sarees. However, here also no documentary evidence was furnished regarding the claim. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant filed the written submissions on 16.11.2017 stating that copies of returns were also submitted. However, it is seen that no copies of appellant's wife's return or the appellant's mother's return were filed. From the assessment order, it is seen that the appellant did not appear nor furnish requisite information. Similarly in appeal, the appellant did not furnish relevant details. Keeping in view the facts, issues and circumstances, Grounds Nos.1(a) and 2 in appeal are dismissed. 3. Learned counsel has raised assessee s solitary grievance that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts making the impugned addition adding gross amount of bank deposits as unexplained despite the fact that he has sufficiently proved the sum to have utilised in business carried along with his mother a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
