TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1449
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ithout sufficient time to analyse and file return 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 providin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Year 2006-07 relevant to A.. Y.. 2007-08 F.. Y.. 2006-07 D.. Krishnamachary State Bank 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e interest of justice, we are of the considered opinion that the issue should be remitted back to the file of the AO to arrive at the true and correct income.. The assessee should submit the necessary information explaining the sources of deposits, application of money and 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... legal validity of consequent additions made by the AO and dismiss the appeal of the assessee on this ground.. This ground is involved for the assessment years from 2007-08 to 2011-12 and the appeals of the assessee for the A.. Y.. 2007-08 to 2011-12 on this ground are dismissed.. 15. The additional 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.. Sam....