Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0321 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 year(s) 11 month(s) 14 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
17-06-2016
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
C
Next Hearing Date
14-06-2016
Assessment Year
2004-2005
Appeal Filed On
03-07-2013
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.1064 TO 1067/BANG/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08 & 200 8- 09 M/S. BHARATH HI-TECH BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.304, 306, 3 RD FLOOR, GOLD TOWER, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE 560 025. PAN: AAACK 8043N VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA NOS.1009 TO 1011/BANG/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2008-09 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), BANGALORE. VS. M/S. BHARATH HI-TECH BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.304, 306, 3 RD FLOOR, GOLD TOWER, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE 560 025. PAN: AAACK 8043N APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K. SUNDAR HEGDE, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI SANJAY KUMAR, CIT-III(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 14.06.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.06.2016 ITA NOS.1064 TO 1067/BANG/2013 & 1009 TO 1011/BANG/2013 PAGE 2 OF 5 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WE LL AS THE REVENUE AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDER OF THE CIT(APP EALS). 2. IN THE ASSESSEES APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAIS ED AN ADDITIONAL GROUND THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 153A O F THE I.T. ACT IS BAD IN LAW AS THE ASSESSMENT WAS NOT PENDING AT THE TIME O F SEARCH AND THERE IS NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE ADDITIONS MADE AND ANY INFORMA TION AND MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THROUGH THE AD DITIONAL GROUND, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CHALLENGED THE ADDITION MADE U/S. 68C OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF ADVANCES RECEIVED FOR SALE OF SITES. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE HAS OPTED NOT TO PRESS THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS. ACCORDI NGLY, THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ARE NOT ADMITTED BEING NOT PRESSED. 4. SO FAR AS THE ISSUES ON MERITS ARE CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITIONS U/S. 68C OF THE ACT HAVING N OTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INTRODUCED THE CREDIT LIABILITIES IN THE FORM O F ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS CLIENTS/CUSTOMERS. 5. AGAINST THE ADDITIONS, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AP PEALS BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) AND BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSES SEE HAS FILED THE CONFIRMATIONS OF THE CREDITORS. THE CIT(A) HAS CAL LED A REMAND REPORT ITA NOS.1064 TO 1067/BANG/2013 & 1009 TO 1011/BANG/2013 PAGE 3 OF 5 THEREON AND BEING PARTLY CONVINCED WITH THE SUBMISS IONS OF THE ASSESSEE, HAD DELETED THE ADDITIONS. 6. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS), THE AS SESSEE AND THE REVENUE PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ASSAI LING THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS). 7. ON A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORI TIES, WE FIND THAT BEFORE THE AO, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE REQUIS ITE INFORMATION SOUGHT BY THE AO AND THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF THE ADVA NCE RECEIVED HAVING INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68C OF THE ACT. BUT BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS AND THE AFFIDAVITS OF THE PERSONS WHO HAVE GIVEN THE ADVANCES. THE CIT(A) CALLED A R EMAND REPORT FROM THE AO AND CONSEQUENTLY THE AO HAS FILED THREE REMAND R EPORTS. THOUGH IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH TH E DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, BUT THE CIT(A) HAVING RELIED UPON IT, HAS REDUCED THE ADDITIONS, PARTLY ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE. 8. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. DR HAS ALS O FILED THE DETAILS OF THE PERSONS WHO HAVE GIVEN THE ALLEGED ADVANCES TO THE ASSESSEE WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THESE PERSONS WERE NOT AVAILABLE AT THE GIVEN ADDRESSES, MOREOVER THESE PERSONS WERE NOT EXAMINED BY THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND IN MOST OF THE CASES THE ADD RESSES WERE NOT COMPLETE. ITA NOS.1064 TO 1067/BANG/2013 & 1009 TO 1011/BANG/2013 PAGE 4 OF 5 9. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE CO MPLETE RELEVANT EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO DEPOSIT OF ADVANCES WITH TH E ASSESSEE. THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT EXAMINED THE ISSUE IN THE LIGH T OF THE DETAILED EVIDENCE. HE HAS SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE CONTENTIONS O F THE ASSESSEE. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE E NTIRE ISSUE REQUIRES FRESH ADJUDICATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE ACCORDIN GLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) IN ALL THESE APPEALS AND RESTORE TH E MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO READJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH, AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSE E. IF NEED BE, THE CREDITORS MAY BE SUMMONED AND BE EXAMINED BY THE AO IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IS SET AS IDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AS W ELL AS THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 17 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( INTURI RAMA RAO ) (SUNIL KUMAR YADA V ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 17 TH JUNE, 2016. /D S/ ITA NOS.1064 TO 1067/BANG/2013 & 1009 TO 1011/BANG/2013 PAGE 5 OF 5 COPY TO: 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.
Mehul