ITO, Ward-8(2), Hyderabad V. Shri Kolan Pratap Reddy, R.R.Dist

ITA 1127/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 66430 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M H NAIK
• Assessee Lawyers: B SHANTI KUMAR
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1127/HYD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-8(2) HYDERABAD V. SRI KOLAN PRATAP REDDY HYDERGUDA VILLAGE, R.R. DISTRICT, A.P. PAN: AEVPK2373N APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SRI M.H. NAIK RESPONDENT BY: SRI B. SHANTI KUMAR DATE OF HEARING: 07.11.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 07.11.2012 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-III, HYDERABAD DATED 24 TH MAY 2012 FOR A.Y. 2008-09. 2. THE REVENUE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: (A) THE CIT(A} HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN ENTERTAINING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN CONTRAVENTION O F PROVISION OF RULE 46A. (B) THE CIT(A) ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW BY RELYING ON THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE. (C) THE CIT(A) ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN ACCEPTING T HE ASSESSEES VERSION THAT THE UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT REPRESENTED ADVANCES RECEIVED OUT OF SALE OF PLOTS WITHOUT ANY RELIABLE CONCLUSIVE EVIDE NCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. (D) THE CIT(A) ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW BY NOT CALLING FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE HE R BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A. I.T.A. NO. 1127/HYD/2012 SRI KOLAN PRATAP REDDY ==================== 2 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE OPINI ON THAT THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO CONTRAVENTION OF PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A WHEREIN THE CIT(A) CONSIDERED CERTAIN FRESH EVIDENCE WITHOUT AFFORDING OPPORTUNIT Y OF EXAMINING THE SAME TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. CONSIDERING THE PLE A OF THE LEARNED DR, WE ARE INCLINED TO REMIT THE ENTIRE ISSUE BACK TO T HE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A). 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH NOVEMBER, 2012. SD/ - ( ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 7 TH NOVEMBER, 2012 TPRAO COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8(2), 8 TH FLOOR, D - BLOCK, IT TOWERS, HYDERABAD. 2. SRI KOL AN PRATAP REDDY, S/O. K. SHANKAR REDDY, D. NO. 3 - 1 - 63, HYDERGUDA VILLAGE, RAJENDRANAGAR MANDAL, R.R. DIST. 3. THE CIT(A) - III, HYDERABAD. 4. THE CIT - II, HYDERABAD. 5. THE DR A BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD