Appeal partially allowed for excessive additions in expenses, rental income, and business receipts. Upheld interest levy.

Krishna Mohan Reddy Tummalapalli Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-4 (1), Hyderabad.

Krishna Mohan Reddy Tummalapalli Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-4 (1), Hyderabad. - TMI Issues involved:
1. Disallowance of expenditure claimed by the assessee.
2. Addition of undisclosed rental income received by the assessee.
3. Addition of undisclosed business receipts by the assessee.
4. Addition of cash deposited in the bank account by the assessee.
5. Levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Act.

Issue 1: Disallowance of expenditure claimed by the assessee

The assessee claimed certain expenditure for which the Ld. AO disallowed a portion as personal expenses. The Ld. CIT (A) upheld this decision. The Ld. AR argued that the disallowance was erroneous as the expenditure was for business purposes. The tribunal found that while the disallowance was on the higher side, there was a possibility of personal expenditure included. The tribunal sustained a disallowance of 15% of the total claim, amounting to approximately Rs. 14,000.

Issue 2: Addition of undisclosed rental income received by the assessee

The Ld. AO observed undisclosed rental income received by the assessee, which the assessee admitted to not disclosing. The Ld. CIT (A) confirmed this addition as the assessee failed to provide any details to support deletion. The tribunal, finding no justification for deletion, upheld the decision of the revenue authorities to add the undisclosed rental income of Rs. 75,000 to the assessee's income.

Issue 3: Addition of undisclosed business receipts by the assessee

The Ld. AO noted a significant discrepancy between the income declared by the assessee and the income received from various parties. The Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the addition of undisclosed business receipts as the assessee failed to justify the difference. The tribunal estimated 15% of the undisclosed business receipts, amounting to Rs. 2,85,000, as a fair addition considering the nature of the business and expenses incurred.

Issue 4: Addition of cash deposited in the bank account by the assessee

The Ld. AO observed a cash deposit of Rs. 12 lakhs in the assessee's bank account without a clear source of income explained. The Ld. CIT (A) upheld this addition as the assessee failed to provide any details to explain the source of the deposit. The tribunal, after considering the total income declared by the assessee and other factors, sustained an addition of Rs. 6 lakhs to explain the source of the bank deposit.

Issue 5: Levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Act

The tribunal noted that the levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Act is consequential and does not require further adjudication. Therefore, this issue was not considered as it was deemed to be in line with statutory provisions.

In conclusion, the tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the assessee after thorough examination of each issue and considering the relevant facts and explanations provided during the proceedings.