ACIT., Central Circle-5, Hyderabad V. Sri Meka Srinivas, Hyderabad

ITA 1121/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 112122514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G APARNA RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: C P RAMASWAMY
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER S.NO. ITA NO. AY APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1 1118/H/13 2006-07 ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5, HYDERABAD SRI MEKA SRINIVAS, HYDERABAD PAN BACPS3232H 2 1119/H/13 2007-08 -DO- -DO- 3 1120/H/13 2008-09 -DO- -DO- 4 1121/H/13 2009-10 -DO- -DO- 5 1122/H/13 2008-09 -DO- SMT. MEKA MENAKA, HYD. PAN ANKPM 9654P 6 1123/H/13 2009-10 -DO- -DO- 7 1124/H/13 2009-10 -DO- SRI BOLLINENI SRIDHAR, HYD. PAN AIKPB3976E 8 1125/H/13 2009-10 -DO- SMT. BOLLINENI DEEPTHI, HYD. PAN ADOPK5796Q 9 1126/H/13 2008-09 -DO- M/S SUVARNABHOOMI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., HYD. PAN AALCS 7510F 10 1127/H/13 2009-10 -DO- -DO- REVENUE BY : SMT. G. APARNA RAO ASSESSEE BY : SHRI C.P. RAMA SWAMY DATE OF HEARING 15-04-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22-04-2015 2 ITA NOS. 1118 TO 1127/HYD/2013 MEKA SRINIVAS AND OTHERS O R D E R PER BENCH: THESE APPEALS FILED BY DEPARTMENT ARE AGAINST SEPAR ATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A)-V, HYDERABAD IN RESPECT OF FIV E DIFFERENT ASSESSEES. APPEALS CONCERNING SHRI MEKA SRINIVAS, RELATE TO AYS 2006-07 TO 2009-10. IN CASE OF SMT. MEKA MENAKA AND M/S SUVARNABHOOMI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., APPEALS PERTAIN TO AYS 2008-09 AND 2009-10. WHEREAS, IN CASE OF BOLLINENI SRIDHAR AND SMT. BOLLINENI DEEPTI, APPEALS RELATE TO AY 2009-10 ONLY. AS ALL THE APPEALS ARE OF THE SAME GROUP AND ISSUES RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE MORE OR LESS CO MMON, THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN CLUBBED AND HEARD TOGETHER AND DI SPOSED OF IN A CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE . 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS, WHICH ARE MORE OR LESS COMMON IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE, A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U /S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN CASE OF M/S SUVARNABHOOMI DEVE LOPERS PVT. LTD. AND THE OTHER ASSESSEES UNDER APPEAL WERE ALSO COVERED UNDER THE SEARCH. AS A CONSEQUENCE OF SEARC H ACTION, NOTICES WERE ISSUED U/S 153A AND ULTIMATELY ASSESSM ENTS WERE COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT IN CASE OF ALL THES E ASSESSEES. WHILE COMPLETING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASS ESSMENT YEARS, AO MADE NUMBER OF ADDITIONS IN CASE OF ALL T HE ASSESSEES. BEING AGGRIEVED OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS SO PASSED, ASSESSEES PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE LD. CIT( A). 3. LD. CIT(A) DISPOSED OF THE APPEALS VIDE SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED BY HIM IN ALL THE CASES ON 28/03/2013. WHILE DISPOSING OF 3 ITA NOS. 1118 TO 1127/HYD/2013 MEKA SRINIVAS AND OTHERS APPEALS, LD. CIT(A) IN SOME CASES DELETED THE ADDIT IONS MADE BY AO FULLY AND SOME ADDITIONS WERE PARTLY SUSTAINED. IN SOME OTHER CASES, LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED ADDITIONS MADE BY AO FULLY. THE DEPARTMENT HAS PREFERRED THESE APPEALS AGAINST THE RELIEF GRANTED BY LD. CIT(A) EITHER FULLY OR PARTLY. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDER S OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS OTHER MATERIALS ON R ECORD. AS CAN BE SEEN, THE PRIMARY COMMON ISSUE RAISED BY THE DEP ARTMENT IN ALL THESE APPEALS IS WITH REGARD TO RELIEF GRANTED BY LD. CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSEES BY CONSIDERING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES I N VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES. OF COURSE, THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO CHALLENGED THE DELETIONS MADE BY LD. CIT(A) ON MERI TS. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSELS FOR BOTH THE PARTIES SUBMITTED BEFORE US, THE MATTER CAN BE REMITTED BACK TO LD. CIT(A) FOR CONSI DERING AFRESH THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT RELATING TO ADD ITIONS DELETED BY LD. CIT(A) AFTER COMPLYING TO RULE 46A OF I.T. R ULES. CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF DISPUTE AND THE SUBMISSIO NS OF THE PARTIES, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF LD. CI T(A) IN ALL THE APPEALS AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR CONSIDERING AFRESH AFTER DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ASSE SSEE. ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE CAN BE CO NSIDERED BY LD. CIT(A) AFTER ALLOWING OPPORTUNITY TO AO TO EXAM INE THE SAME. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY US HE REINABOVE ARE CONFINED TO THE ADDITIONS DELETED BY LD. CIT(A) EIT HER FULLY OR PARTLY WHICH HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY CHALLENGED BEF ORE US BY THE DEPARTMENT AND WILL NOT EXTEND TO ANY ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS NOT CHALLENGED BEFORE US EITHER BY ASSESSEE OR BY THE D EPARTMENT. AS WE HAVE REMITTED THE MATTERS TO THE LD. CIT(A) F OR DECIDING 4 ITA NOS. 1118 TO 1127/HYD/2013 MEKA SRINIVAS AND OTHERS AFRESH, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON MER ITS HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS, HENCE, DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATI ON ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND APRIL, 2015 SD/- SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL M EMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 22 ND APRIL, 2015 KV COPY TO:- 1. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5, 8 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, L.B. STADIUM ROAD, BASHEERBAGH, HYD 500 004. 2. SRI MEKA SRINIVAS, PLOT NO. 19, BOLLINENI HOMES, MADHAPUR, SERILINGAMPALLY, HYDERABAD. 3. SMT. MEKA MENAKA, PLOT NO. 19, BOLLINENI HOMES, MADHAPUR, SERILINGAMPALLY,HYD. 4. SRI BOLLINENI SRIDHAR, G-2, FORTUNA RESIDENCY, 8 -2- 696/12-14, ROAD NO. 12, BANJARA HILLS, HYD. 5. SMT. BOLLINENI DEEPTHI, G-2, FORTUNA RESIDENCY, 8-2-696/12-14, ROAD NO. 12, BANJARA HILLS, HYD. 6. M/S SUVARNABHOOMI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., H.NO. 8-2-293/82/A/39, PLOT NO. 39, ROAD NO. 5, BESID E BATA SHOWROOM, JUBILEE HILLS, HYD. 7. CIT(A)-V, HYDERABAD 8. CIT(CENTRAL), HYD 9. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDERABAD. 5 ITA NOS. 1118 TO 1127/HYD/2013 MEKA SRINIVAS AND OTHERS DESCRIPTION DATE INTLS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON SR.P.S. 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR SR.P.S 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER VP 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./PS SR.P.S. 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.P S. 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.P.S. 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER