M U Shankar Rao, Hyderabad V. ITO, Hyderabad

ITA 1140/HYD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1323 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-07-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E SUNIL BABU
• Assessee Lawyers: M VENKATRAM REDDY
• Keywords: Assessment record; Retraction

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1140/HYD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 04-05) SHRI M.V.SHANKAR RAO, HYDERABAD (PAN AFKPM 2094 P) V/S INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.VENKATRAM REDDY RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.E.SUNIL BABU DATE OF HEARING 17.01.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22.02.2013 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) IV, HYDERAB AD DATED 26.8.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 17 DAYS IN THE FILIGN FO THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. ASSESS EE HAS FIELD A PETITION SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY. WE ARE CONVINCED WIT H THE REASONS ADDUCED FOR THE DELAY IN THE SAID PETITION. WE ACC ORDINGLY, CONDONE THE DELAY AND PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF, THE APPEAL ON MERI TS. 3. ASSESSEES GRIEVANCE IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH RE GARD TO COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF REVISED ST ATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS PREPARED BY THE EARLIER AUDITOR, SHRI SHEKHAR BABU OF M/S. AKASAM ASSOCIATES. ITA NO.1140/HYD/09 SHRI M.V.SHANKAR RAO, HYDERABAD 2 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, DERIVES INCOME FROM BUSINESS AS PROPRIETOR OF MS/. STAR FINANCE AND MARKETING CONSULTANTS, HYDERABAD. FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2004-05, HE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 5.11.2004 SHOWING INC OME AT RS.49,664, IN ADDITION TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.4,00,000. A SURVEY OPERATION UNDER S.133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN THE BUSINESS PRE MISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 7.2.2005. DURING THE SURVEY OPERATION, STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED. SINCE AT THAT TIME, HE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY, HE HAS ADMITTED INC OME OF RS.4,00,000 FROM BUSINESS OPERATION. LATER, ON 17.3.2005, ASSESSEE HAS FILED A REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL SHO WING INCOME FROM PROFESSION AT RS.49,664 AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURC ES AT RS.7,45,000. ALONGWITH THE SAID STATEMENT, ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FIL ED ANOTHER STATEMENT SHOWING DETAILS OF INVESTMENTS MADE BY HIM IN DIFFE RENT ASSETS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. SUBSEQUENTLY, PROCEEDINGS UNDER S.147 OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED IN THIS CASE AND ACCORDINGLY A N OTICE UNDER S.148 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A LETTER DATED 3.12.2007 FROM THE ASSESSEE. IN THAT LETTER, WHILE REFERRING TO HIS STATEMENT RECORDED EARLIER, OFFERING ADDITIONAL INC OME OF RS.4,00,000 (IN LIEU OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURN), T HE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPLETE THE ASS ESSMENT BY ADDING THE SAID AMOUNT TO THE RETURNED INCOME. HOWEVER, WH EN THE SAID REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BRO UGHT TO HIS NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID REVISED COMPUT ATION STATEMENT FILED WAS ERRONEOUSLY PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY HIS ERSTW HILE AUDITOR. CONSIDERING THAT THE SAME DO NOT REFLECT HIS TRUE S TATEMENT OF AFFAIRS. THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED TO IGNORE THE SAME. HOWE VER, STATING THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 200 2-03 AND 2003-04 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WERE COMPLETED ON THE B ASIS OF THE REVISED COMPUTATIONS FILED BY HIM AND FURTHER OBSERVING THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD ITA NO.1140/HYD/09 SHRI M.V.SHANKAR RAO, HYDERABAD 3 COMPLETED HIS INCOME AS PER REVISED STATEMENT BY FU RNISHING THE DETAILS OF INVESTMENTS MADE IN VARIOUS ASSETS, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED SUCH PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT CONSIDER ING THE REVISED COMPUTATION. BASED ON THE SAID REVISED COMPUTATION , HEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INCOME OF RS.49,664 TOWARDS INCO ME FROM PROFESSION AND AN AMOUNT OF RS.74,45,000 TOWARDS INCOME FROM O THERS SOURCES, RE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UND ER S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.7,94,664 VIDE ORDER DAT ED 14.12.2007. 5. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DECIDING THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE FOLLOWI NG MANNER- 6. IT IS THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE SAID REVISED STATEMENT OF INCOME FURNISHED BEFORE THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN PREPARED ERRONEOUSLY BY HIS PREVIO US AUDITOR AND THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED BY HIM. HOWEVER, I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN SUCH CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT. ON A PER USAL OF THE SAID REVISED STATEMENT OF INCOME FILED BY THE APPELLANT, AFTER THE SURVEY OPERATION, COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON T HE ASSESSMENT RECORD, I FIND THAT THE SAID REVISED COMPUTATION O F TOTAL INCOM E AND THE OTHER STATEMENT SHOWING DETAILS OF INVESTME NT MADE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, HAVE BEEN SIGNED BY THE AP PELLANT HIM SELF. IN THE FIRST STATEMENT WHICH IS THE REVISED COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME, THE APPELLANT HAS CLEARLY SHOWN INCOM E FROM PROFESSION AT RS.49,664/- AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOU RCES (INCOME RECEIVED) AT RS.7,45,000/-. IN THAT STATEMENT, SHO WING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOM E AT 0, THE TOTAL TAXABLE INCOM E IS SHOWN AT RS.7,94,664/-. 6.1 IN THE SECOND STATEMENT, GIVING DETAILS OF INVE STMENT MADE BY THE APPELLANT FOR ASST. YEAR 2004-05, WHICH WAS ATTACHED TO THE ABOVE STATEMENT OF REVISED COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INC OM E, THE APPELLANT HAS CLEARLY SHOWN THE INVESTMENT MADE IN DIFFERENT ASSETS AGGREGATING TO RS.7,45,000. THE FIVE DIFFER ENT ASSETS MENTIONED IN THE STATEMENT HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA 3 AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESS MENT ORDER. BELOW THE SAID STATEMENT, THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER GIVEN THE FOLLOWING NOTE, SIGNED BY HIM: NOTE : 1. THOUGH DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, I HAVE ADMITTED AN INCOME OF RS.4,00,000/-(RUPEES FOUR LAKHS ONLY) AS INCOM E FROM OTHER SOURCES FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2004-05, BUT THE ACTUAL INVESTMENT DURING THE YEAR ARE RS.7,45,000/-. ITA NO.1140/HYD/09 SHRI M.V.SHANKAR RAO, HYDERABAD 4 6.2 IN THE FACTS OF SUCH SIGNED REVISED STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION TOTAL OF INCOME ADMITTING INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AT RS.7,45,000/- AND THE ABOVE SIGNED STATEM ENT CLEARLY ADMITTING THAT THE ACTUAL INVESTM ENTS OF RS.7,45,000/- MADE IN DIFFERENT ASSETS HAVE BEEN MADE DURING THE CURRENT YEAR, HOW CAN THE APPELLANT CONTEND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT CORRECT IN CONSIDERING THE SAID REVISED STATEMENTS IN COMPUTIN G THE TOTAL INCOME IN HIS CASE FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2004-05? FRO M THE APPELLANTS SIGNATURE CONTAINED IN BOTH THE ABOVE S TATEMENTS, IT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CONSCIOUSLY FU RNISHED SUCH STATEMENTS, FILED ON 17.3.2005 ADMITTING INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.7,45,000/- UNDER THE HEAD FROM OTHER SOURCES. UNDER THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN MY VIEW, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE AF TER CONSIDERING THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.7,45,000, ADMITTED TOWARDS IN COME FROM OTHERS SOURCES. HENCE, THE SAID ADDITION OF RS.7,4 5,000/- MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT IS CONCERNED. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS CASE IS UPHELD. AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), ASSESSE E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE STATEMENT FIELD BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS PARTICULARLY SIGNED BY HIM. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER CANNOT BE FOUND FAULT WITH FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THAT STATEMENT. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF SASSOON J. DAVID AND CO. P VT. LTD. V/S. CIT(118 ITR 269) WAS DELIVERED ON DIFFERENT SET OF FACTS, A ND AS SUCH, IT IS OF NO ASSISTANCE TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE. CO NSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, AS THE REVISED S TATEMENT WAS DULY SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN T HE MATCHING ASSETS OF RS.7.45 LAKHS ACQUIRED WITH THE ADDITIONAL INCOM E, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED IN GOING BY THE REVISED STATEM ENT FILED. AFTER GIVING REVISED STATEMENT DULY SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT RETRACT FROM THE SAME, WITHOUT GIVING CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SUCH RETRACTION. WE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRM THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A), REJECTING THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEA L. ITA NO.1140/HYD/09 SHRI M.V.SHANKAR RAO, HYDERABAD 5 7. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 22.02.2013 SD/- (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN ) SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) JUDICIAL MEMBER. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. DT/- 22 ND FEBRUARY, 2013 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI M.V.SHANKAR RAO, C/O. SHRI M.VENKATRAM REDDY, ADVOCATE 76/2 RT, SAIDABAD COLONY, HYDERABAD 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6( 1 ) , HYDERABAD 3. 4. 5. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) IV HYDERABAD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX III HYDERABAD THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT HYDERABAD B.V.S.