Income Tax Officer (International Taxation)-2, Hyderabad V. Mohammed Moizuddin, Hyderabad

ITA 1/Hyd/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [NaN] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2089 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 01-01-2021
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 143(3); 92; 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1/Hyd/2021 Asessment Year 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, International Taxation-2, Hyderabad. Vs. Shri Mohammed Moizuddin, Hyderabad. PAN: AAQPU8017M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Sreelata Vootkoor, C.A. Revenue by Sri T. Sunil Goutam, DR Date of hearing: 23/12/2021 Date of pronouncement: 03/02/2021 O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, A.M: This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-10, Hyderabad in appeal No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2020- 21/1028366581(1), dated 22.10.2020 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The Revenue has raised five grounds in its appeal however the cruxes of the issues are that :- “1. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the ld.AO for Rs.4,25,00,000/- towards unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act based on fresh evidence submitted before him for the first time thereby violating the Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 2 ITA No.1/Hyd/2021 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the ld.AO for Rs.36,00,000/- towards unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act based on fresh evidence submitted before him for the first time thereby violating the Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and NRI filed his return of income for the relevant assessment year admitting total income of Rs.10,920/-. Thereafter the case was taken up for scrutiny under CASS and assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act vide order dt.20.12.2019 wherein the Ld.AO made addition of Rs.36,00,000/- towards unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and Rs.4,25,00,000/- towards unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) held both the issues in favour of the assessee aggrieved by which the Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, it was observed by the Ld.AO that the assessee has purchased immovable property vide document No.5910/2016 dt.2.12.2016 for a total consideration of Rs.4,25,00,000/-. It was further observed by the Ld.AO that the assessee has also deposited Rs.36 lakhs during demonetisation period. On query, it was explained by the assessee that he had withdrawn cash of Rs.53,50,000/- from his Bank account between the period 1.10.2016 to 21.10.2016 which he had re-deposited in the Bank during the period Nov., 2016 and Dec., 2016. However, the Ld.AO opined that the amount re-deposited in the Bank account was not the 3 ITA No.1/Hyd/2021 amount withdrawn from his Bank account earlier. Further, since the assessee was not able to explain proper source for the purchase of property amounting to Rs.4,25,00,000/- the Ld.AO made addition of Rs.4,25,00,000/- and Rs.36,00,000 u/s.69 & 69A of the Act towards unexplained investment and unexplained money respectively. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) after examining the Bank account of the assessee and other relevant documents, granted relief to the assessee. 5. At the outset, the Ld.DR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) had granted relief to the assessee based on additional evidence submitted before him which was never produced before the Ld.AO. The Ld.DR further argued that the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to afford an opportunity to the Ld.AO to examine the documents furnished before him for the first time by obtaining a Remand Report from the Ld.AO. It was therefore pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of Ld.AO for de-novo consideration. The Ld.AR argued in support of the order of Ld.CIT(A) and prayed for confirming the same. 6. We have heard both sides and perused the material available on record. From the facts of the case, it appears that the Ld.CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee by relying on the fresh evidence produced before him which was not produced before the Ld.AO at the time of assessment proceedings. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we hereby remit the entire matter back to the Ld.AO for fresh consideration. We 4 ITA No.1/Hyd/2021 also hereby direct the Ld.AO to admit any fresh evidence produced by assessee to justify his stand and also afford sufficient opportunity to the assessee keeping in view of the fact that the assessee is a NRI and thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with law and merits. 7. In the result, the appeal of revenue is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above. Pronounced in the open Court on the 03 rd Feb., 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (S.S. GODARA) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 03 rd .02.2022. * Reddy gp Copy to:- 1) ITO, International Taxation-2, Hyderabad. 2) Shri Mohammed Moizuddin, 10-5-29/1, Masab Tank Road, Ahmed Nagar, Hyderabad-500 028 3) The CIT(A)-10, Hyderabad. 4) The CIT(IT & TP), Hyderabad. 5) The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 6) Guard File