R Narasimhulu, Hyd, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-8(2), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 1088/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2423 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 16-08-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S PRAVEENA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B (SMC), HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1088/HYD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 R. NARASIMHULU, HYDERABAD VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : NONE FOR REVENUE : SMT S. PRAVEENA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 01-06-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07-06-2017 O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, HYDERABAD, DATED 29-03-2016. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS SIX GRO UNDS, WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS AGAINST LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE AND PROBABILITIES O F THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT WITHOUT ADJUDICAT ING UPON GROUND NO.2 TAKEN IN APPEAL BEFORE HIM IN WHICH THE APPELLANT C ONTESTED THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,30,180/ - WHICH WAS MADE WITHO UT FURNISHING THE INFORMATION STATED TO BE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER REGARDING DISCREPANCY IN RECEIPTS. I.T.A. NO. 1088/HYD/2016 R. NARASIMHULU :- 2 - : 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GROUNDS TAKEN ABOVE, TH E LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFI RMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,30,180/ - IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT WHERE I NCOME WAS LIABLE TO BE DETERMINED U/S.44AD OF THE ACT. 5.THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER. OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.6,06,228/- MADE U/S.69C OF THE I .T ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE ADDITION IS UNWARRANTED SINCE THE SOURCE FOR THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE WAS NOT DOUBTED/QUESTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. FOR THE ABOVE GROUNDS AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THA T MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE APPEA L BE ALLOWED. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, AMEND OR MODIFY T HE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF T HE APPEAL, IF IT IS CONSIDERED NECESSARY. 2. BRIEFLY FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE, AN INDI VIDUAL, FILED RETURN OF INCOME OF RS. 1,78,895/-. ASSESSING OFFIC ER (AO) IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, MADE ADDITION OF RS. 1,30,180/- TOWARDS DIFFERENCE IN GROSS RECEIPTS AND AN AMOUNT OF RS. 6,0 6,228/- TOWARDS CONTRIBUTION OF RS. 50,519/- EVERY MONTH TO CITI BANK. AGGRIEVED ON THE ABOVE TWO AMOUNTS, ASSESSEE HAS PRE FERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE SAME. HENCE, THE PRESENT APPEAL. 3. AFTER THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL WAS PRESENTED ON 17 -08- 2016, NOTICES WERE ISSUED POSTING THE CASE ON 17-11-2 016. AS NONE APPEARED, FRESH NOTICE WAS ISSUED. AGAIN NONE A PPEARED ON 15-02-2017. ACCORDINGLY, FURTHER NOTICE WAS ISSUED POSTING THE CASE ON 01-06-2017. IT IS NOTICED THAT NOTICE WAS ISSUE D RETURNED UN-SERVED. THE LAST OF THE NOTICE WAS RETURNED AS UN-CLAIMED. SINCE THE NOTICES SENT TO ASSESSEES ADDRESS, AS GIVEN IN FORM-36 HAVE BEEN RETURNED UN-SERVED, THIS FORUM IS OF THE OPI NION THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL . NO CHANGE OF I.T.A. NO. 1088/HYD/2016 R. NARASIMHULU :- 3 - : ADDRESS HAS BEEN PROVIDED NOR ANY ALTERNATE ADDRESS FOR SERVING THE NOTICE WAS STATED. IN VIEW OF THAT, THE APPEAL IS DE CIDED EX- PARTE. AS SEEN FROM THE RECORD, THERE IS NON-COMPLIANCE FROM ASSESSEE EVEN BEFORE THE AO AND LD.CIT(A) RECORDS THA T NO INFORMATION WAS FURNISHED. SINCE NO INFORMATION WAS A LSO FURNISHED ALONG WITH THE APPEAL BEFORE THIS FORUM, I HAVE NO OPTION THAN TO CONFIRM THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A). ASSESSEES GROUNDS ARE ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 4. THERE SEEMS TO BE TWO PAN NUMBERS ALLOTTED TO ASSESS EE. ASSESSMENT ORDER MENTIONS THE PAN: AEQPN2761R, WHEREAS THE CIT(A) ORDER MENTIONS THE PAN: ACOPN2761R. THE SAME WAS REPEATED BY ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ENCLOS ED TO THE FORM NO.36. SINCE BOTH THE NUMBERS ARE QUOTED BY ASSESSEE AT VARIOUS PLACES, AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CORRECT PAN NUMBER AND TAKE STEPS TO CANCEL THE OTHER ONE. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH JUNE, 2017 SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 7 TH JUNE, 2017 TNMM I.T.A. NO. 1088/HYD/2016 R. NARASIMHULU :- 4 - : COPY TO : 1. SHRI R. NARASIMHULU, 1-13/8/10, MANIKONDA, RAJEN DRA NAGAR, R.R. DIST., HYDERABAD. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-2, HYDERABAD . 4. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.