9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lakhs in former two cases and ₹ 2 lakhs in the last instance; respectively. We notice that the search in question had found and seized those original promissory notes than photocopies thereof which sufficiently indicates that the corresponding loan transactions had not been completed as the original documents in such a case is supposed to be with the creditor only. Coupled with this, Ms. Biswas fails to rebut that the learned lower authorities have added the loan amounts only whose source; going by the contents of the seized documents, ought not to be treated ass assessee's unexplained income since the same belongs to the named third parties only. We also wish to clarify here that the Revenue has failed to pinpoint any payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned addition - ITA Nos. 1068 to 1071/Hyd./2018 and 1072/Hyd./2018 - - - Dated:- 7-4-2021 - S.S. Godara, Member (J) And L.P. Sahu, Member (A) For the Appellant : B. Ramakrishnan, A.R. For the Respondents : Nivedita Biswas, D.R. ORDER Per S. S. Godara, JM The instant batch of five appeals pertains to two taxpayers Shri D. Shiva Prasad Reddy and his wife Smt. Devi Reddy Padmaja; herein referred to as the 'former' and the 'latter' assessees; respectively. The former assessee's four appeals ITA 1068 to 1071/Hyd/18 arise from the CIT(A)-3, Visakhapatnam's separate orders; all dated 31.3.2018, for assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2009-10 and 2010-11 in case nos. 500 to 504/2017-18; resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s side. We thus accept learned CIT-DR's vehement arguments supporting the impugned additions of unaccounted receipts of ₹ 30 lakhs. This addition stands confirmed. Assessee's appeal 1068/H/18 for AY 2005-06 fails therefore. 3. Next comes sundry creditors addition of ₹ 14,01,000/- in ITA 1069/H/18 for AY 2006-07. We notice herein as well that the CIT(A) has followed the very detailed discussion as already held in the preceding AYs since based on the seized material only. We thus follow judicial consistency to affirm CIT(A)'s findings in the instant second AY 2006-07 as well. This assessee's appeal ITA 1069/H/18 is also declined. 4. We now move to AY 2009-10 involving assessee's appeal 1070/Hyd/18 chal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 1,63,46,295/- representing borrowals from Shri G. Shoban Babu and interest thereof. Learned lower authorities have themselves identified source of impugned loan in other words that the sum indicates that repayment of the very sum to Shri Shoban Babu only. This repayment of principle sum does not represent diversion of assessee's alleged unexplained income in other words. We also accept Revenue's stand supporting impugned addition at the same time and direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the impugned addition only to the extent of interest payment component from the assessee's side made to Shri Shoban Babu. He shall further ensure that the assessee is granted telescoping benefit of the corresponding unaccounted receipts am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been treated as 'unexplained deposits' in the absence of explanation. While doing so, the Assessing Officer has given credit for the return of income of ₹ 91,144/- and the remaining amount was treated as unexplained deposits. 4.2. The appellant has filed written submissions during the appellate proceedings and explained that the appellant is earning Interest income and filing returns of income accordingly. It was claimed that the amount of ₹ 10,34,874/- was deposited out of her past savings from the earlier financial years. Hence, requested for deletion of addition. 4.3. I have carefully considered the written submissions, arguments of the appellant and findings of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
