ARUN KUMAR DHONDI KUBEER,ARMOOR V. ITO., WARD-1, NIZAMABAD

SA 18/HYD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Arun Kumar Dhondi Kuber, who filed stay petitions against the recovery of outstanding demands due to additions made by the Assessing Officer concerning unexplained cash deposits in his bank accounts, which were confirmed by the CIT (A). The Tribunal noted the absence of the Department's representative during the hearing and decided to proceed ex-parte. The assessee argued that the CIT (A) had confirmed the additions without considering the Assessing Officer's remand report, which showed a lesser cash deficiency than what was added. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments and decided to stay the recovery of the outstanding demands, subject to certain conditions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 40054 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K. HANMANDLOO
• Keywords: Application of stay
• Section: 143(3); 154

Judgement Text

" SA Nos 17 to19 of 2024 Arun Kumar Dhondi Kuber Page 1 of 8 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member and S.A. Nos.17 to 19/Hyd/2024 आ.अपी.सं /ITA Nos.667, 668 & 670/Hyd/2024 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2013-14) Shri Arun Kumar Dhondi Kuber, ARMOOR NIZAMABAD PAN:AAZPD7647P Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward – 1 Nizamabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: Shri K. Hanmandloo, CA राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by:: N O N E सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 22/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/11/2024 आदेश/ORDER Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President By way of these stay petitions, the assessee is seeking stay against the recovery of outstanding demand arising from the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash deposits in the Bank Accounts of the assessee which has been confirmed by the learned CIT (A). SA Nos 17 to19 of 2024 Arun Kumar Dhondi Kuber Page 2 of 8 2. None appeared on behalf of the Department when these stay petitions were called upon for hearing on today i.e. 22/11/2024. It transpires from the record that, on the last date of hearing i.e. on 8/11/2024, the hearing of the stay petitions were adjourned at the joint request of the parties i.e. learned AR and the learned DR. Even on the earlier dates of hearing, all these stay petitions were adjourned at the request of the assessee. The learned DR has sent an application for adjournment of hearing, on the ground that, she is suffering from low BP with nausea. However, nobody has appeared on behalf of the Department despite the fact that, there are 4 Departmental Representatives deputed for representing the Department before the Tribunal. Even in case of absence of a particular Departmental Representative due to health issue, the Department ought to have assigned the duties to the other Officer to appear before the Bench and participate in the proceedings. The non-appearance on behalf of the Department at the time of hearing of the stay petitions clearly manifest the casual approach of the Department towards the proceedings of the Tribunal. Even otherwise, the Department is not to take repeated adjournment of hearing as clarified by the CBDT in the instructions issued from time to time. This Bench takes a serious view of the non-appearance of the Department not only in one case but on all cases fixed for hearing for 22/11/2024 which shows that the Department is not taking hearing of stay matters as well as miscellaneous applications SA Nos 17 to19 of 2024 Arun Kumar Dhondi Kuber Page 3 of 8 before the Tribunal seriously. We accordingly propose to hear and dispose of these stay petitions ex-parte. 3. The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee during the course of assessement proceedings has duly explained the source of cash deposits made in the Bank Account of the assessee during these 3 A.Ys with the support of cash book as well as cash flow statements and other details. He has further submitted that during the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT (A) called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer wherein the Assessing Officer has again verified and examined all the details including cash book and cash flow statements filed by the assessee and has worked out only a cash deficiency of Rs.32,59,087/- whereas the learned CIT (A) has confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment orders for these 3 years to the tune of Rs.35.48 lakhs for the A.Y 2011- 12, Rs.95 lakhs for the A.Y 2012-13 and Rs.2.19 crores for the A.Y 2013-14. Thus, the learned AR has contended that the additions sustained by the learned CIT (A) without considering the remand report of the Assessing Officer is highly arbitrary and not sustainable being contrary to the facts as recorded by the Assessing Officer in the remand report. He has referred to the remand report and pointed out that the Assessing Officer has given clear details of the availability of cash with the assessee and worked out a deficiency of Rs.32,59,087/- only as on 31/03/2013 which covers all the 3 AYs. He has further pointed out that there SA Nos 17 to19 of 2024 Arun Kumar Dhondi Kuber Page 4 of 8 is a shortfall of 2% for the A.Y 2011-12 and about Rs.2,20,000/- for the A.Y 2013-14, in view of a revised demand arising from the rectification order u/s 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer to meet the conditions of 20% of total demand. Thus, he has submitted that the assessee is ready to pay the deficient amount to make up the payment equivalent to 20% of the demand for these 3 years and pleaded that the recovery of outstanding balance amount may be stayed till the disposal of the appeals of the assessee. 4. Since none appeared on behalf of the Department, therefore, we do not have the privilege to hear the argument of the Department. 5. We have considered the submissions of the learned AR and carefully perused the relevant records. In the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the additions were made for all these 3 years on account of unexplained deposits in the Bank Accounts of the assessee and particularly, the negative cash balance for these A.Ys. During the proceedings before the learned CIT (A), a remand report was called from the Assessing Officer wherein the Assessing Officer vide his remand report dated 25/11/2019 has stated as under: “All the above statements are cross confirmed with each other and has prepared a consolidated funds flow statement by incorporating all the available family return of incomes along with deposit loans as source of cash inflows SA Nos 17 to19 of 2024 Arun Kumar Dhondi Kuber Page 5 of 8 and the total is matched with available assets of the family which is cash outflow and arrived at the balance as on 31- 03-2009 & 31-3-2013 to substantiate and cross confirm the available cash balances. The evidences for verification are considered basing on the numerical figures available in the above statements. The following documents which are verified and considered as evidence is submitted along with this letter. 1. Detailed report relating to the observations made on comparing the cash book with current account cash transaction account. 2. The cash book from 17-07-2007 to 31-03-2009 along with the observations made on comparing with entries in bank statements, abstract of deficit balances (mentioned as Annexure-II). 3. Consolidated cash flow of D.K. Arun Kumar Family as on 31-03-2009 (Mentioned as Annexure – II(A). 4. Consolidated cash flow of D.K. Arun Kumar Family as on 31-03-2013 (Mentioned as Annexure – II (B). 5. Balance sheets of family members as on 01-04-2009 & 31-03-2013 which are submitted during scrutiny proceedings. 6. Capital fund accounts, trial balance of D.K. Arun Kumar from A.Y 2009 to A.Y 2013-14. 7. Current account cash transactions statement submitted during scrutiny proceedings. 8. Cash book submitted during scrutiny proceedings. 9. Summary of returned income submitted during scrutiny proceedings. On cross confirming the entries and considering evidences, I have arrived negative balance of (-) Rs.32,59,087/- the details are submitted with narrated explanations in the report furnished in enclosed above”. SA Nos 17 to19 of 2024 Arun Kumar Dhondi Kuber Page 6 of 8 6. The Assessing Officer has given the working of all the details of the availability of the cash with the assessee during these years and finally concluded as under: Less: Net Effect of the amounts as per Annexure-2 Rs.1,15,35,000 Net effect of the amounts as per annexure-3 Rs.1,61,90,000 Net effect of the amounts as per annexure-5 Rs. 99,81,000 Net effect of the amounts as per annexure-6 Rs. 82,29,255 Net effect of the amounts as per annexure-8 Rs.1,00,00,000 Net effect of the amounts as per annexure-9 Rs.16,21,175 TOTAL (-) Rs.32,59,087 As the cash transaction current account does not have any proper purpose, if the entries relating to this is ignored in the cash book submitted and by considering the above observations the negative balance as appearing in summary statement of Rs.32,59,087/- will appear in the cash book” 7. Thus, the Assessing Officer in the remand proceedings have arrived to a cash deficiency of Rs.32,59,087/-. We further note that the learned CIT (A) has though mentioned the remand report in the impugned order, however, the details and facts as reported by the Assessing Officer in the report appears to have not been considered by the learned CIT (A). We further note that the assessee has paid the following amounts against the demand for these 3 years as under: SA Nos 17 to19 of 2024 Arun Kumar Dhondi Kuber Page 7 of 8 A.Y Demand Raised Paid total 2011-12 20,18,730.00 4,00,000 2012-13 52,22,510.00 10,44,502 2013-14 1,14,34,300.00 22,86,860 8. The learned AR has fairly submitted that there is a deficiency in respect of payment of 20% of the demand for the A.Ys 2011-12 and 2013-14 and pleaded that the assessee is ready to pay the deficient amount in respect of these 2 A.Ys. Accordingly by considering the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, prima facie, the assessee has made out an arguable case as the learned CIT (A) has confirmed the entire addition by ignoring the remand report of the Assessing Officer, worked out the total deficient of cash as on 31/03/2013 at Rs.32,59,087/-. Hence, we inclined to stay the recovery of the balance outstanding demand subject to further deposit of Rs.1 lakh for A.Y 2011-12 and Rs.2,20,000/- for the A.Y 2012-13 on or before 5/12/2024. The payment already made for the A.Y 2012- 13 is 20% of the demand. Thus, we stay the recovery of the outstanding demand for a period of 90 days or till the disposal of the appeals of the assessee whichever is earlier. The hearing of the appeals are directed to be fixed on 10/12/2024. The date of hearing of the appeals is announced in the Open Court and noted by the learned AR of the assessee. The parties are directed not to take any adjournment of the hearing of the appeals and also file the paper book, if any, well in advance. SA Nos 17 to19 of 2024 Arun Kumar Dhondi Kuber Page 8 of 8 9. In the result, stay applications filed by the assessee are allowed . Order pronounced in the Open Court on the conclusion of hearing on 22nd November, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (MANJUNATHA, G) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIJAY PAL RAO) VICE-PRESIDENT Hyderabad, dated 22nd November, 2024 Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Shri Arun Kumar Dhondi Kubeer, Flat 403, Premier Residency, 1- 21/7/22 Near MJ Hospital, Armoor, Nizamabad 503224 Telangana 2 Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Income Tax Department, Aayakar Bhavan, Subashnagar, Nizamabad 503002 3 Pr. CIT – Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order "