Suryakumari Kilari, Vizianagaram V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

ITA 113/VIZ/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9542 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 12-10-2022
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 27-05-2021
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order
• Section: 69; 263; 143(3); 142(1); 143(2)

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री द ु व्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी, न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बालाकृ ष्णन, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.113/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Smt.Surya Kumari Kilari 133, Venkateswara Colony Dharmapuri Road Vizianagaram [PAN : AWHPK1958N] Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Vizianagaram (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.114/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Shri Kilari Nagaraju Plot No.91, 1 st Lane Padmavathi Nagar Vizianagaram Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri GVN Hari, AR प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent by : Shri MN Murthy Naik, CIT (DR) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date of Hearing : 13.10.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member : These appeals are filed by the assessees against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [in short, [Pr.CIT], Visakhapatnam-1 2 ITA No.113&114/Viz/2021, A.Y.2016-17 Smt.Surya Kumari Kilari, Sri Kilari Nagaraju, Vizianagaram in DIN & Order No.ITBA/COMF/17/2020-21/1032078366(1) /1032078792(1) dated 31.03.2021 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016- 17. Since the grounds raised in these appeals are common, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and a common order is being passed and the facts are extracted from I.T.A.113/Viz/2021, for the sake of convenience as under. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed her return of income for the A.Y.2016-17, admitting total income of Rs.4,13,280/-. Later on, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) were issued, calling for certain information. On examination of the information filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer(AO) completed the assessment and passed order u/s 143(3) dated 22.11.2018. Under the powers vested with the Pr.CIT as per the provisions of section 263 of the Act, the Ld.Pr.CIT called for assessment records and examined the same. The Ld.Pr.CIT observed that the assessee along with two other co-owners had purchased vacant land for a consideration of 1,55,85,500/- and paid her share of Rs.51,95,167/-, out of which an amount of Rs.33,45,167/- was paid in cash and the balance amount was paid through banking channels. While making payment through banking 3 ITA No.113&114/Viz/2021, A.Y.2016-17 Smt.Surya Kumari Kilari, Sri Kilari Nagaraju, Vizianagaram channels, the assessee made a deposit in cash of Rs.9.5 lakhs on 10.12.2015 in Corporation Bank, Vizianagaram to obtain Demand Draft in favour of the seller. With regard to the sources for investment made in cash of Rs.42,95,167/-, the assessee explained that the cash paid / deposited was out of the balance available in her books, but not submitted any documentary evidence to substantiate her claim. Hence, the Ld.Pr.CIT viewed that the AO ought to have treated the amount of Rs.42,95,167/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and held that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 22.11.2018 is prima facie erroneous in law and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, therefore proposed for revision u/s 263 of the Act and issued show cause notice to the assessee, as to why the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 22.11.2018 for the A.Y.2016-17 should not be revised. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee filed written submissions before the Ld.Pr.CIT as follows : “In this connection, I hereby bring to your kind notice that I have already submitted electronically all the information, details, evidences and documents in support of purchase of 1/3 share of immovable property during the previous year 2015-16, relevant to the Asst.Year 2016-17 at the time of assessment proceedings. The then Learned Assessing Officer also examined my case thoroughly and verified information, details, evidences and documents submitted by me and passed order u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act by accepting the income admitted by me on 22.11.2018. So, at this point of time, it is not at all justified to revise my assessment u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, as I have discharged my onus completely and the then Learned Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act after having satisfied about the correctness of my 4 ITA No.113&114/Viz/2021, A.Y.2016-17 Smt.Surya Kumari Kilari, Sri Kilari Nagaraju, Vizianagaram information and sources etc. In fact she has passed the order by making the following observation in her assessment order dated 22.11.2018. “In response to the said notices the assessee filed the submissions through e-proceedings module were called from time to time. After examination of the relevant information filed by the assessee through ITBA and going by the material produced / obtained, the assessment is completed by accepting the income returned.” The assessee submitted before the Ld.Pr.CIT that she has uploaded all the information, details, evidences and documents as called for by the then learned Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings and uploaded the same onto the mail ID of the Ld.Pr.CIT. The assessee further submitted before the Ld.Pr.CIT that she has produced the books of account relating to the financial year 2015-16, relevant to the A.Y.2016-17 before the assessing officer in which the impugned purchase of immovable property to the extent of her 1/3 rd share was duly reflected. Hence, submitted that the assessment order dated 22.11.2018 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and prayed for dropping the proposed revision u/s 263. 3. After considering the submissions of the assessee and material available on record, the Ld.Pr.CIT held that, the assessee, except stating that the cash paid / deposited was out of the balance available in her books, had not submitted any documentary evidence to substantiate her claim and the AO had not verified the same and hence, the assessment order passed by 5 ITA No.113&114/Viz/2021, A.Y.2016-17 Smt.Surya Kumari Kilari, Sri Kilari Nagaraju, Vizianagaram the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Ld.Pr.CIT directed the AO to redo the assessment after gathering all necessary evidences and after causing proper verification and pass consequential order accordingly after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.Pr.CIT, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds : 1. The impugned order dated 31.03.2021 passed by the Hon’ble Principal CIT-1, Visakhapatnam u/s 263 of the I.T.Act by setting aside the assessment order dated 22.11.2018 passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act for the Asst.Year 2016-17 by invoking the revisionary powers u/s 263 of the I.T.Act is unjust and uncalled for. 2. The Principal CIT-1 ought to have accepted the explanation and contentions along with evidences submitted by the appellant during the course of impugned proceedings and also at the time of assessment proceedings and ought to have dropped the impugned proceedings initiated u/s 263 of the I.T.Act in the interest of justice. 3. The Principal CIT-1 ought to have appreciated the fact that the then Learned Assessing Officer passed the impugned assessment order dated 22.11.2018 u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act by verifying all the materials and evidences submitted by the appellant and borne on record and she passed the order only after having satisfied with the correctness and genuineness of the material and evidences borne on record. So, in such case revision u/s 263 of the I.T.Act is not at all warranted in any view of the matter. 4. The Principal CIT-1 ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellant produced the books of account in which the impugned purchase of immovable property and the sources these or were duly 6 ITA No.113&114/Viz/2021, A.Y.2016-17 Smt.Surya Kumari Kilari, Sri Kilari Nagaraju, Vizianagaram recorded and the said books of account were verified by the then learned assessing officer and after verification of the books of account only she passed the impugned assessment order accordingly. 5. All the grounds of appeal are related to initiation of revisionary proceedings by the Ld.Pr.CIT u/s 263 of the Act. 6. The Ld.AR argued that the assessee had uploaded all the information, details, evidences and documents as called for by the then Ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings and also uploaded the details of payments made by the assessee towards purchase of 1/3 share of property in the F.Y.2015-16 and the details of sources into the mail ID of the Ld.Pr.CIT. The assessee had produced the books of account relating to the F.Y.2015-16, relevant to the A.Y.2016-17 before the Ld.AO in which the impugned purchase of immovable property to the extent of 1/3 rd share was reflected. The Ld.AR further submitted that the AO has examined the relevant information filed by the assessee and completed the assessment accepting the income returned, which is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue to revise the assessment which has already been verified and completed by the Ld.AO. Hence, requested to set aside the order of the Ld.Pr.CIT and allow the appeal of the assessee. 7 ITA No.113&114/Viz/2021, A.Y.2016-17 Smt.Surya Kumari Kilari, Sri Kilari Nagaraju, Vizianagaram 7. Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that the assessee, simply stated that the cash paid / deposited was out of the balance available in her books, but had not submitted any documentary evidence to substantiate her claim and the AO had not verified the same, which rendered the assessment not only erroneous, but also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and the Ld.Pr.CIT rightly invoked the provisions of 263, hence, requested to sustain the order u/s 263 and dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 8. We have heard both the parties, perused the material placed on record and the orders of the lower authorities. In the instant case, the assessee along with two co-owners had purchased immovable property at Vizianagaram on 13.10.2015 vide Regd.document No.6251/2015 for a total consideration of Rs.1,55,85,500/- out of which, paid her share of 51,95,167/-. Further, it is seen that while making this payment, the assessee paid an amount of Rs.33,45,167/- in cash and paid the balance amount through banking channels. It was the observation of the Ld.Pr.CIT that while making payment through banking channels, the assessee made deposit in cash of Rs.9.5 lakh on 10.12.2015 in Corporation Bank, Vizianagaram to obtain Demand Draft in favour of the seller. The sources for a sum of Rs.42,95,167/- paid in cash towards the investment ought to have been explained by the assessee. On this aspect, the contention of the 8 ITA No.113&114/Viz/2021, A.Y.2016-17 Smt.Surya Kumari Kilari, Sri Kilari Nagaraju, Vizianagaram assessee is that the cash paid / deposited was out of the balance available in her books, but she had not submitted any evidence to substantiate her claim and the AO has not verified the above details, therefore the Ld.Pr.CIT set aside the orders passed by the AO as deemed to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The contention of the assessee is that the Ld.AO has examined all the details filed by the assessee. Upon perusal of the assessment order, the AO has not mentioned anything about the verification of cash deposits / cash payment made by the assessee to the seller. In the absence of such enquiry, we are of the view that the order passed by the Ld.AO is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld.Pr.CIT to examine the cash payments / deposits made by the assessee in order to purchase the immovable property. Hence, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28 th October, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (एस बालाकृ ष्णन) (द ु व्वूरु आर.एल रेड्डी) (S.BALAKRISHNAN) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याधयकसदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 28.10.2022 L.Rama, SPS 9 ITA No.113&114/Viz/2021, A.Y.2016-17 Smt.Surya Kumari Kilari, Sri Kilari Nagaraju, Vizianagaram आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. ननधधाऩरती/ The Assessee–(i) Smt.Surya Kumari Kilari, 133, Venkateswara Colony, Dharmapuri Road, Vizianagaram (ii) Shri Kilari Nagaraju, Plot No.91, 1 st Lane, Padmavathi Nagar, Vizianagaram 2. रधजस्व/The Revenue – Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam-1 4. नवभधगीय प्रनतनननध, आयकर अपीलीय अनधकरण, नवशधखधपटणम/ DR,ITAT, Visakhapatnam 5.गधर्ा फ़धईल / Guard file आदेशधनुसधर / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam