Bandlapalli Harinath Reddy, Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Hyderabad

ITA 1164/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8677 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-11-2019
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MOOKAMBI KEYAN S
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Salary income
• Section: 80C; 143(3); 143(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A - SMC , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1164 /HYD/ 20 19 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 09 - 10 BANDLAPALLI HARINATH REDDY, HYDERABAD. PAN: AJTPB 3728 N VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8(3), SIGNATURE TOWERS, KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD - 500 084. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SMT. SANDHYA REVENUE BY: SHRI MOOKAMBIKEYAN. S - DR DATE OF HEARING: 06/11/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06 /11/2019 ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) - 2, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO.0025/2012 - 13, DATED 29/02/2016 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE AY 2009 - 10. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL: (I) THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT (A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. (II) THE LD CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE PROVIDED FURTHER OPPORTUNITY BEFORE DECIDING TH E APPEAL EX - PARTE. (III) THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN TREATING THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 18,57,200 AS THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 2 (IV) THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,00,000 BEING THE AMOUNT CLAIME D AS DEDUCTION U/S. 80C OF THE ACT. (V) THE AO ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PERSONAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AT RS. 1,26,605/ - . (VI) ANY OTHER GROUND OR GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, FIELD HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2009 - 10 ON 22/01/2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 6,61,966/ - WHICH INCLUDES INCOME FROM SALARY OF RS.4,47,482/ - , INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY OF RS. 16,800/ - AND INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF RS.2,97,684/ - . INITIALLY, THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE ACT AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLA IN THE SOURCES FOR CASH DEPOSIT ED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF RS. 18,57,200/ - . HOWEVER, BEFORE THE LD. AO THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSITS AND THEREFORE, THE LD. AO ADDED THE TOTAL CASH DEPOSITS OF 18,57,000 AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT A ND FURTHER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION FOR RS. 1 LAKH UNDER CHAPTER VIA OF THE ACT . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO, ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). ON APPEAL, LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. AO AND DISMISSE D THE APPEAL. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A), ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL . 3 4 . AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERTAINING TO THE DETAILS OF CASH DEPOSITS , SALARY INCOME AND INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT (A) DID NOT CONSIDER THE PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE HIM AND ONLY GAVE ONE OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE THE CASE BEFORE HIM . THEREFORE, L D. AR PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT (A) IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS AND ARGUE THE APPEAL ON MERITS . ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR VEHEMENTLY O PPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND STRONGLY RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 5 . I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. ON EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE , I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D NOT COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE LD. AO AND FURTHER COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. EVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PROMPT ENOUGH TO COOPERATE WITH THE PROCEEDINGS. THIS LETHARGIC ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT APPRECIAB LE. THEREFORE, I DO NOT FIND MUCH STRENGTH IN THE ARGUMENT S ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE APPEAL WAS POSTED ONLY ONCE FOR HEARING IN THE INTEREST OF 4 JUSTICE , I HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT (A) IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERITS BY PROVIDING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. AT THE SAME BREATH, I ALSO HEREBY CAUTION THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTLY CO - OPERATE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) IN THE PROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH THE LD. CIT (A) SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON THE RE CORD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 6 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE . PRONOUNCED I N THE OPEN COURT ON 06 TH NOVEMBER , 2019. SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER H YDERABAD, DATED: 06 TH NOVEMBER , 2019 OKK COPY TO: - 1) BANDLAPALLI HARINATH REDDY, FLAT NO.502, COMFORT PRIDE APARTMENTS, NALLAGANDLA, SERILINGAMPALLI, HYDERABAD. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8(3), SIGNATURE TOWERS, KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD 500 084. 3) THE CIT(A) - 2, HYDERABAD. 4) THE PR. CIT - 2, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE