Bagam Vijay Kumar , Khammam V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kothagudem

ITA 1169/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0038 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWAPNIL PATIL
• Section: 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A-SMC”, HYDERABAD (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1169/Hyd/2019 A.Y. 2008-09 Bagam Vijay Kumar, Khammam. PAN: AHBPB 2796 A VS. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kothagudem. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri A. Srinivas Revenue by: Sri Swapnil Patil, Sr. AR Date of hearing: 29/11/2021 Date of pronouncement: 18/01/2022 ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-7, Hyderabad in appeal No. 0151/CIT(A)-7/2016-17, dated 28/05/2019 passed 28/05/2019 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 and U/s. 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The assessee has raised four grounds in his appeal and they are extracted herein below for reference: “1. The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the notice issued U/s. 148 by the A.O. for reopening of the case based on the information received from the audit party. 3. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the addition made amounting to Rs.9,91,900/- by the A.O. 2 4. Any other grounds which the appellant may urge either at or before the date of hearing.” 3. At the outset, I find that the addition is made in the hands of the assessee because the assessee was not able to reconcile the ledger extract of his account obtained by the Revenue from the local agents as it stood in their books. The assessee failed in doing so both before the Ld.AO as well as the ld. CIT (A). I also find that the assessee is an individual earning salary income and also income from tuitions. Considering the nature of the assessee’s profession and the meagre income he earns out of the busy schedule, I am of the view that the assessee is required to be provided with one more opportunity before the Ld. AO in order to justify his claim. Accordingly, I hereby remit the matter back to the Ld. AO for de-novo consideration. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open Court on the 18 th January, 2022. Sd/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 18 th January, 2022. OKK 3 Copy to:- 1) Appellant: Bagam Vijay Kumar, D.No.5-3-80, Naragondkar Nagar, Kothagudem, Khammam. 2) Respondent: Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kothagudem, Khammam. 3) The CIT(A)-7, Hyderabad. 4) The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7, Hyderabad. 5) The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 6) Guard File