Kaluram Babulal, Hyderabad, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-7(4), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 105/HYD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6571 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-07-2018
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D PRASAD RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A (SMC), HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 105/HYD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 M/S. KALURAM BABULAL, HYDERABAD [PAN: AAEFK5857B] VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(4), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI A.V. RAGHU RAM, AR FOR REVENUE : SHRI D. PRASAD RAO, DR DATE OF HEARING : 03-07-2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11-07-2018 O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-10, HYDERABAD, DATED 04-04-2016. 2. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-10, HYDERA BAD, ALLOWING THE APPEAL ONLY IN PART IS PERVERSE, ILLEGAL AND UN SUSTAINABLE ON FACTS AND IN LAW. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAV E ALLOWED THE APPEAL IN ENTIRETY. 2. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT GRANTING RELIEF IN RESPECT OF THE OF EXPENDITURE OF RS. 4,59,738 WHICH WAS CLA IMED ON PAYMENT BASIS IN THE ASST. YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN RESP ECT OF CONTRACT. I.T.A. NO. 105/HYD/2017 :- 2 - : 3. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT GRANTING RELIEF IN RESPECT OF COMMISSION EXPENDITURE OF RS.5,367 WHICH WAS CLA IMED ON PAYMENT BASIS IN THE ASST. YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . 4. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN SUSTAINING T HE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INC OME FROM JOB WORK CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS.23,75,863. 5. THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) WITH RESPECT TO ALLEGED NONCOMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED, AND WITH RESPE CT TO THE CORRESPONDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT ARE INCO RRECT AND AT ANY RATE DOES NOT HAVE ANY BEARING ON THE APPELLATE PRO CEEDINGS ESPECIALLY WHEN ALL THE INFORMATION IS FILED ON REC ORD BY THE APPELLANT. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE INFORMATION FILED ON RECORD BY THE APPELLANT IN THE FORM OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER RECORD. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT TH E TIME OF HEARING, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL MAY BE PLEAS ED TO ALLOW THE APPEAL. 3. ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) HAS PASSED AN ASSESSMENT O RDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT [ACT], IN WHICH TH E INCOME FROM BUSINESS WAS CALCULATED AS PER P&L A/C WHEREAS ASSESSEE MADE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE ABOVE AMOUNT WHEREIN HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME CREDITED TO THE P&L A/C WAS DED UCTED AS THE SAME WAS SEPARATELY ASSESSED. FURTHER, ASSESSE E CLAIMED AMOUNTS OF EXPENDITURE DISALLOWED U/S. 40(A) (IA) OF THE ACT IN AY. 2006-07 ON PAYMENT BASIS DURING THE YEAR. I T ALSO DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT ON WHICH TDS WAS NOT PAID DURING THE YEAR. IGNORING THE COMPUTATION MADE TO THE PROFIT IN P&L ACCOUNT AND WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION, AO BROUGHT THE AMO UNT OF RS. 1,09,274/- I.E., PROFIT IN P&L A/C TO TAX. IT W AS RECONCILED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WHICH WAS EXTRACTED I N PARA 7.1 OF THE ORDER. LD.CIT(A) IN HIS WISDOM DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW ONLY THE HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME, BUT THERE IS NO I.T.A. NO. 105/HYD/2017 :- 3 - : DISCUSSION ON THE OTHER AMOUNTS. HE REJECTED THEM STATI NG THAT THE EVIDENCE HAS NOT BEEN FILED. 3.1. THE OTHER ISSUE IS ABOUT THE RECEIPTS FROM ONE M/S . AGI GLASSPACK. ON THE REASON THAT THERE IS DIFFERENCE IN THE TURNOVER REPORTED BY THE SAID CONCERN AND ASSESSEE, A O MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 23,75,863/- TO THE INCOME AND BR OUGHT THE SAME TO TAX. ASSESSEE MADE THE RECONCILIATION AS EXTRAC TED IN PARA 8.2 OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND FILED NECESSARY EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOK BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). HOWEVER, LD.CIT(A) REJECTED THEM STATING THAT NO CORROBORATIVE EV IDENCE HAS BEEN FILED (PARA 8.6). 4. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FILED AND REFERRED TO THE PAPER BOOK CONTAINING 476 PAGES IN WHICH THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 5. LD.DR, HOWEVER, REQUESTED FOR REFERRING THE MATTER TO AO FOR VERIFICATION. 6. I HAVE EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND CIT(A) AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS MADE BY ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORI TIES WITH ENCLOSURES (WHICH ARE ALSO PLACED IN PAPER BOO K). SINCE AO AND LD.CIT(A) FAILED TO CONSIDER THEM AND REJECTED THE CLAIMS STATING THAT NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IS FILED , I AM OF THE OPINION THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED, IF THE MATTER IS SET ASIDE AGAIN. THE CLAIMS MADE BY ASSESS EE ARE GENUINE AND ARE SUPPORTED BY THE DOCUMENTS PLACED ON I.T.A. NO. 105/HYD/2017 :- 4 - : RECORD. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3 ARE AMOUN T OF CLAIM DISALLOWED IN AY. 2006-07 IN THE COMPUTATION AND CLAIM ED IN THIS YEAR ON PAYMENT BASIS U/S. 40(A)(IA). SIMILARLY IN THIS YEAR, ASSESSEE DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,65,648/ - U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. EVEN THESE AMOUNTS ARE NOT CONSID ERED BY THE AUTHORITIES. THE OTHER AMOUNT IS RECONCILIATION OF TURNOVER FROM M/S AGI GLASSPACK. SINCE I AM SATISFIED WITH TH E CLAIMS AND RECONCILIATION FILED BY ASSESSEE WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCE, I DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS MADE. THE COMPUTATI ON FILED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME HAS TO BE ACCEPTED AND A O IS DIRECTED TO PASS THE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. ALL THE GROU NDS ARE ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH JULY, 2018 SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 11 TH JULY, 2018 TNMM I.T.A. NO. 105/HYD/2017 :- 5 - : COPY TO : 1. M/S. KALURAM BABULAL, C/O. A.V. RAGHU RAM & P. VINOD, ADVOCATES, 610, BABUKHAN ESTATE, BASHEER BAGH, HYDERABAD. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(4), HYDERABAD. 3. CIT (APPEALS)-10, HYDERABAD. 4. PR.CIT-3, HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.