IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES (SMC) : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA.No.199/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2011-2012 Income Tax Officer, Mr. Sampath Kumar Ward-9(1), Hyderabad. vs. Deshagoni, Hyderabad. PAN AJXPD7967M (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Mr.A. Sitarama Rao For Assessee : Mr. B. Shanthi Kumar Date of Hearing : 03.10.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 03.10.2016 ORDER PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. This appeal by Revenue is directed against order passed by CIT(A)-VII, Hyderabad and it pertains to A.Y. 2011- 2012. 2. assessee declared total income of Rs.3,53,870 for year under consideration. matter was taken-up for scrutiny and several notices/summons were issued but it was reported that assessee was not residing in address available on record and Income Tax Inspector reported that assessee shifted from last known address. Therefore, assessment was proposed to be completed under section 144 of Act. During course of best judgment assessment proceeding, Assessing Officer noticed that assessee made cash deposits aggregating to Rs.40,67,300 in savings account maintained with Axis Bank and source thereof could not be 2 ITA.No.199/Hyd/2016 Mr. Sampath Kumar Desogni, Hyderabad. explained. Therefore, entire amount was added as unexplained income by invoking provisions of section 68 of Act. Thus assessment was completed on total income of Rs.43,19,790. 3. Aggrieved, assessee contended before CIT(A) that he was dealing in used cars and in normal course of business activity assessee deposited cash which was taken from customers and as and when cars were purchased amount was paid to them. Therefore, addition, referable to entire deposit, is not sustainable in law. 4. Ld. CIT(A) observed that though there was no evidence with regard to cash deposits in bank account, going by fact that money was deposited and withdrawn, only addition of Rs.10,37,417 was added as unexplained credit. He further observed that turnover has to be taken as Rs.74,11,872 and assessee having declared Rs.43,86,970, on balance turnover income at 20% was estimated. 5. Aggrieved, both Assessee as well as Revenue preferred appeals. But it appears that appeal preferred by Revenue was not known to assessee. When appeal preferred by assessee had come-up for hearing before Tribunal even Revenue has not brought to notice of Bench that there is cross-appeal filed by Revenue. Thus, appeal filed by assessee was taken-up for hearing wherein Bench observed that estimation of commission at 15% of turnover is reasonable and it had upheld addition towards unexplained credit at Rs.10,37,417 implying thereby that unexplained cash deposit was not separately taken into 3 ITA.No.199/Hyd/2016 Mr. Sampath Kumar Desogni, Hyderabad. consideration. However, in departmental appeal, which is now posted for hearing, Ld. D.R. submits that separate addition is called for, referable to cash deposits in bank account and it was further contended that Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have restricted income at 20% of deposits and entire amount of Rs.30,24,902 should have been treated as unexplained cash credits. 6. Both Learned Counsel for assessee as well as Ld. D.R. submitted that assessees appeal (ITA.No.96/Hyd/ 2016 dated 15.07.2016) having been disposed of by estimating income at 15% of deposits, separate addition of unexplained cash credit cannot be made. 7. Under these circumstances, I am of opinion that appeal filed by Revenue deserves to be dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court on 03.10.2016. Sd/- (D.Manmohan) Vice President Hyderabad, Dated 03rd October, 2016 VBP/- Copy to 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Block No.2D, I.T. Towers, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad. 2. Mr. Sampath Kumar Desogni, D.No.12-1-170/4, Fathullaguda, Nagole, Hyderabad. 3. CIT(A)-7, Hyderabad. 4. Pr. CIT-7, Hyderabad. 5. Departmental Representative ITAT, ( SMC ) Bench, Hyderabad 6. Guard File. Income-tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad v. Sampath Kumar Deshagoni