Bikshapathi Siddala , Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(3), Hyderabad

ITA 1219/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6308 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 05-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y V S T SAI
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment
• Section: 68; 69; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B - SMC, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1219/HYD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014 - 15 BIKSHAPATHI SIDDALA, HYDERABAD. PAN: AZEPS 0916 Q VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 9(3), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI A. SRINIVAS REVENUE BY: SHRI Y.V.S.T. SAI, CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING: 07/09/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 07 /09/2020 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) - 7, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO. 276/CIT (A) - 7/2016 - 17, DATED 28/06/2019 PASSED U/S. 144 R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE AY 2014 - 15. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SIX 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 AN AMOUNT OF RS. 11,26,250/ - ADDED BY THE AO AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. 2 (3) THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER ERRED IN ISSUING A NOTICE U/S. 251(2) OF THE ACT. (4) THE A PPELLATE COMMISSIONER ERRED IN ADDING AN AMOUNT OF RS. 14,50,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S. 69 OF THE ACT. (5) THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER ERRED IN CHANGING THE SECTION UNDER WHICH THE AO MADE THE ADDITION, I.E, SECTION 68 TO 69 AS PERCEIVED BY THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER. (6) ANY OTHER GROUND OR GROUNDS THAT MAY URGE EITHER AT OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE ME THAT THE LD. AO HAD PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER U/S. 144 OF THE ACT WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 11,26,250/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS U/S. 69 OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) ENHANCED THE ASSESSABLE INCOME TO RS. 14,50,000/ - . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A), NOW ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE ME THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. AO DUE TO UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES AND EVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) DUE TO PAUCITY OF TIME, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBMIT THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS CASE. LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NOW THE AS SESSEE IS IN POSSESSION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS OF THE BANK DEPOSITS BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND THEREFORE, THE LD. AR REQUESTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE PROVIDED 3 WITH ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO PURSUE HIS CASE BEFOR E THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES . LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND OBJECTED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND ARGUED THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, ON THE GIVEN DATES OF HEARING, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS REPRESENTATI VE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. AO AND DID NOT PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE EVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) . UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO PASS ORDERS ON MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HE NCE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES DO NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 5 . I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. ON EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR. THE LD. CIT (A) AS WELL AS THE LD. AO HAD POSTED THE CASE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. AO ON THE GIVEN DATES OF HEARING AND EVEN BE FORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY COGENT EVIDENCE . THEREFORE, THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES WERE LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO PASS ORDERS BASED ON THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD . IN THIS SITUATION, I DO NOT FIND MUCH STRENGTH IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE PRAYER OF THE LD. AR AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN POSSESSION 4 OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN THE CORPORATION BANK ACCOUNT OF T HE ASSESSEE , IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. AO FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION THEREBY PROVIDING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. AT THE SAME BREATH, I ALSO HEREBY CAUTION THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTL Y CO - OPERATE BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THEIR PROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON THE RECORD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY . 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 07 TH SEPTEMBER, 2020. SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 07 TH SEPTEMBER , 2020. OKK 5 COPY TO: - 1) SRI BIKSHAPATHI SIDDALA, H.NO.2 - 3 - 551, SAINAGAR, NALOLE, HYDERABAD - 500 068. 2) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 9(3), 2 ND FLOOR, D - BLOCK, IT TOWERS, AC GUARDS, MASAB TANK, HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT(A) 7, HYDERABAD. 4) THE PR. CIT - 7, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE