The ITO, Ward-2(1), Guntur, Guntur V. Sri Pentala Satyanarayana Vara Prasad, Guntur

CO 30/VIZ/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2262 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D KOMALI KRISHNA
• Assessee Lawyers: P BALA SRINIVAS
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITA NO.297/VIZAG/2012 & CO 30/VIZAG/2012 PENTALA SATYANARAYANA VARAPRASAD, GUNTUR 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . , . , $ BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A.NO.297/VIZAG/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) ITO WARD - 2(1) GUNTUR VS. PENTALA SATYANARAYANA VARAPRASAD GANAPAVARAM, GUNTUR DIST. [PAN: AGOPP 3846Q ] ( % / APPELLANT) ( &'% / RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.30/VIZAG/2012 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NO.297/VIZAG/2012) ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) PENTALA SATYANARAYAN A VARAPRASAD GANAPAVARAM, GUNTUR DIST VS. ITO WARD - 2(1) GUNTUR ( % / APPELLANT) ( &'% / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI P. BALA SRINIVAS, AR / RESPONDENT BY : SMT. D. KOMALI KRISHNA, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 07.01.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.03.2016 ITA NO.297/VIZAG/2012 & CO 30/VIZAG/2012 PENTALA SATYANARAYANA VARAPRASAD, GUNTUR 2 / O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), GUNTUR DATED 8.6.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2009-10. THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 2. FACTS ARE IN BRIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIV IDUAL, DERIVED INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BY DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 1,93,740/-. THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED U/S 143( 1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS 'THE ACT') AND THEREAFTER AFTER FOLLOWING THE DUE PROCEDURE, ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLET ED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. 3. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS NOTED THAT ON A PERUSAL OF BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS SEE N THAT THERE ARE HUGE CASH DEPOSITS OF ` 69,52,244/- IN HIS ICICI BANK SB ACCOUNT DURING TH E FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF THE DE POSITS MADE IN BANK ACCOUNT AND REASONS FOR WITHDRAWALS. THOUGH THE AS SESSEES REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED ON 30.12.2011, HE HAD NEITH ER FURNISHED ANY ITA NO.297/VIZAG/2012 & CO 30/VIZAG/2012 PENTALA SATYANARAYANA VARAPRASAD, GUNTUR 3 INFORMATION NOR EXPLAINED THE SOURCES FOR CASH DEPO SITS IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS TREATED THE CASH DEPOSITS OF ` 69,52,244/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS AND THE S AME IS ADDED TO THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LD. CI T(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING THAT ON CAREFUL OBSERVATION OF THE EVENTS THAT TOOK PLACE, THE APPELLANT HAS TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE IMPUGNED ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH COULD NOT BE POSSIBLE AS O N SOME OCCASIONS, THE A.O. COULD NOT FIND TIME TO ENTERTAIN THE APPELLANT DUE TO HIS OTHER PRIORITIES AND ON SOME OCCASIONS THERE WAS NO COMPL IANCE BY THE APPELLANT AS HE WAS GATHERING THE INFORMATION TO BE FURNISHED. THUS, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT DUE TO MISMATCHES BETWEEN THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AND THE APPELLANT, THE NEEDFUL COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED I N PERSON. BY OBSERVING THE ABOVE AND BY CONSIDERING THE BANK ACC OUNT AND A.RS INFORMATION AND SOME OF THE INFORMATION RELATING TO THE ASSESSEES MOTHER, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. 4. REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. AT TH E TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. D.R. HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DELE TED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS TO BE REVERSED. ITA NO.297/VIZAG/2012 & CO 30/VIZAG/2012 PENTALA SATYANARAYANA VARAPRASAD, GUNTUR 4 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSE E AND ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN AND FOR THAT PURPOSE, THE ISSUE MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CO NSIDERATION. BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED FOR SENDING THE ISSUE BACK TO THE AS SESSING OFFICER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERING THE ISSUE DE-NOVO AND DECIDE IN ACCORDA NCE WITH LAW. HENCE, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. SO FAR AS CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, IT IS ONLY SUPPORTIVE AND IN VIEW OF THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH, THE CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE CO FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IS DISMISSED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 ND MAR16. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . ) (G. MANJUNATHA) (V. DURGA RAO) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.297/VIZAG/2012 & CO 30/VIZAG/2012 PENTALA SATYANARAYANA VARAPRASAD, GUNTUR 5 ! /VISAKHAPATNAM % /DATED : 02.03.2016 VG/SPS '! (! /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / THE APPELLANT THE ITO WARD-2(1), GUNTUR 2. / THE RESPONDENT PENTALA SATYANARAYANA VARA PRAS AD, 9-45, GANAPAVARAM, NADENDLA (MANDALAM), GUNTUR DIST., GUN TUR 3. ) / THE CIT, GUNTUR 4. ) ( ) / THE CIT(A), GUNTUR 5. ! , , , , ! / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // /0 , (SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY) , , ! / ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM