Case Law Details
M. K. Kempasiddaiah Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)
Since no documentary evidence was filed, the AO treated the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was unexplained investment which the CIT(A) confirmed. It is the plea of the assessee that the assessee is a 80 years old person and his savings to the extent of Rs.2,50,000/- cannot be doubted. After considering rival submissions, I am of the view that the plea of the assessee in this regard has to be accepted. Admittedly, the fixed deposit in question was issued on 02.06.2010 and matured for payment on 02.06.2012. Considering the income returned by the assessee in the past, I am of the view that the plea of the assessee that the source of funds for making investments in fixed deposit is out of past savings deserves to be accepted.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
ITA No.682/Bang/2020 to 686/Bang/2020 are 5 appeals by the Assessee against 5 orders of CIT(A)-11, Bangalore, all dated 27.4.2018 in relation to AY 2008-09 to 2011-12 and 2013-14. Since common issues are involved, these appeals were taken up together for hearing. We deem it convenient to pass a common order.
2. There is a delay of 844 days in filing these appeals by the Assessee. The reasons for the delay in filing the appeals was considered by this Tribunal and by an order dated 28.1.2021, the delay in filing the appeals was condoned.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
