Krishnaiah Bollineni, Hyderabad V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax , Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

CO 22/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9921 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 12-07-2021
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 18-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANJALA SAHU
• Assessee Lawyers: D V AJANEYULU
• Keywords: Salary income; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 201; 192; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A BENCH : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENC E ) BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1 92 /HYD./ 201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014 - 15 DY.CIT, CIRCLE 1(2) VS. SRI KRISHNAIAH BOLLINENI HYDERABAD HYDERABAD [ PAN: A CVPB8494N ] CROSS OBJECTION NO. 22/HYD/2018 (IN ITA NO. 192/HYD./2018 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014 - 15 SHRI KRISHNAIAH BOLLINENI VS DY.CIT, CIRCLE 1(2) HYDERABAD HYDERABAD [PAN: ACVPB8494N] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR REVENUE: SMT. ANJALA SAHU, DR FOR ASSESSEE: SRI D.V. AJANEYULU AR DATE OF HEARING : 12 /07/ 202 1 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2 6 / 07 /202 1 O R D E R PER P. MADHAVI DEVI, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY REVENUE WHILE THE CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 1 , HYDERABAD DATED 26. 10. 201 7 RELATING TO A.Y. 2014 - 15. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE AN INDIVIDUAL, DERIV ING INCOME FROM SALARY AND OTHER SOURC ES, E - FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2014 - ITA NO . 192 /HYD./ 201 8 AY 2014 - 15 C.O. NO. 22/HYD/18 SRI KR ISHNAIAH BOLLINENI, HYDERABAD 2 15 ON 01.11.2014 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 9,49,48,520/ - AND FILED HIS REVISED RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2014 - 15 ON 28.10.2015 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,47,15,080/ - . DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS U / S 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY ACCEPTING INCOME RETURNED BY ASSESSEE IN ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME I.E. RS. 9,49,48,520/ - . 3. AGGRIEVED BY NON - CONSIDERATION OF THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME , THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATI ON U/S 154 OF THE ACT REQUESTING THE AO TO CONSIDER THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 1,47,15,080/ - . BUT THE AO DID NOT DISPOSE OF THE SAME. MEANWHILE , THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APP EAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) STAT ING THAT IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAD MISTAKENLY INCLUDED A SUM OF RS. 8,02,33,438/ - BEING INTEREST RECEIVABLE IN TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 22,67,68,332/ - AND THE SAME WAS CORRECTED IN THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO VERIFY AS TO WHY THERE IS DIFFERENCE IN THE INTEREST INCOME OFFERED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN AND THE REVISED RETURN AND TO RECTIFY THE SAME AS P ER LAW. 4. AGAINST THIS ORDER OF CIT(A) , THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN LAW. 2. THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE ACTION OF THE AO IN NOT CONSIDERING THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME AS THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ITSELF WAS FILED BELATEDLY. 3. THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CALLED FOR THE DETAILED REPORT REGARDING HUGE DIFFERENCE IN THE INTEREST INCOME DECLARED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN AND THE REVISED RETURN FILED. 4. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. ITA NO . 192 /HYD./ 201 8 AY 2014 - 15 C.O. NO. 22/HYD/18 SRI KR ISHNAIAH BOLLINENI, HYDERABAD 3 4.1. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTION S SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 5. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVING REGARD TO THE R IVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, W E FIND THAT FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US, THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME WAS 31.07.2014 WHILE IT WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 01.11.2014 AND THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 28.10.2015. IT IS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN IS FILED BELATEDLY AND THEREFORE ASSESSEES REVISED RETURN IS NOT VALID. THOUGH THIS CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IS CORRECT, WE FIND THAT E VEN IF THE REVISED RETURN CANNOT BE CONSIDERED, THE ASSESSEE CAN ALWAYS BRING TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO, ANY MISTAKE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME , AND THE AO IS BOUND TO CONSIDER THE SAME AND COMPUTE THE INCOME ACCORDINGLY. THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CAN BE CONSIDERED AS INFORMATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE MISTAKE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE CBDT VIDE CIRCULAR NO. 14(XL - 35) OF 1955, DATED 11 TH APRIL, 1955, HAD CLEARLY ISSUED INSTRUCTIONS THAT THE AO SHOULD NOT TAKE ADVANT AGE OF THE IGNORANCE OF THE ASSESSEE TO COLLECT MORE TAX FROM HIM THAN IS LEGITIMATELY DUE FROM HIM. IN THIS CASE, WE FIND THAT IN THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER DATED 03.05.2018 PASSED BY THE AO, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS VERIFIED AND WAS FOUND TO BE CORR ECT. THEREFORE, W E SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) . 6 . IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 26 /07/2021 . SD/ - SD/ - (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 26 TH JULY, 2021 *GMV ITA NO . 192 /HYD./ 201 8 AY 2014 - 15 C.O. NO. 22/HYD/18 SRI KR ISHNAIAH BOLLINENI, HYDERABAD 4 COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. DY.CIT, CIRCLE 1(2), HYDERABAD. 2. SRI KRISHNAIAH BOLLINENI, NO. 8 - 2 - 502/1/A, JIVI TOWERS, ROAD NO . 7, BANJARA H ILLS, HYDERABAD 500 03 4 , TELANGANA. 3 . ACIT, RANGE 1 , HYDERABAD 4. CIT(A) - 1 , HYDERABAD 5. PR.C IT 1 , HYDERABAD . 6 . D.R. ITAT HYDERABAD 7 . GUARD FILE