Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Proddatur V. Sri Ammireddy Sanjeeva Reddy, Kadapa

ITA 1260/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1436 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-01-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Assessee Lawyers: M H NAIK
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1260/HYD/2012 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, PRODDATUR. V/S SHRI AMMIREDDY SANJEEVA REDDY, MYDUKUR, KADAPA DIST. (PAN - ADXPA 0069 M ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.140/HYD/2012 (IN ITA NO.1260/HYD/2012) : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 SHRI AMMIREDDY SANJEEVA REDDY, MYDUKUR KADAPA DIST. (PAN - ADXPA 0069 M ) V/S INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, PRODDATUR. (CROSS OBJECTOR) (APPELLANT IN APPEAL) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI A.V.RAGHURAM RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.H.NAIK DATE OF HEARING 03.01.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03.01.2013 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTIO N BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX(APPEALS) GUNTUR DATED 13.6.2012 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL READ AS FOLLOWS- 1. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND LAW. ITA NO.1260/HYD/12 & CO THEREIN SHRI AMMIREDDY SANJEEVA REDDY, KADAPA. 2 2. THE INFERENCE BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ASS ESSEES AR HAS FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE FOR DEVELOPMENT EXPE NSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.6,15,000 WITH COPIES OF VOUCHERS FOR VERIFICATIO N AND THAT THE ADDITION DO NOT SUSTAIN, IS INCORRECT AND ERRONEOUS, AS NO S UCH MATERIAL AS FILED BEFORE THE AO AT THE TIM E OF SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS. 3. THE CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO ALLOW AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER RULE 46A WHILE ADMITTING FRESH EVIDENCE DURIN G THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND HENCE THE APPELLATE ORDER IS VITIAT ED. 4. THE INFERENCE BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ASS ESSEES AR HAS FURNISHED THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM PETTY TRADERS AND FAR MERS IN RESPECT OF LOAN CREDITORS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.6,61,000 IN THE RANGE OF RS.12,000 TO RS.18,000 ALONGWITH THEIR COPY OF PATTADAR PASSBOOK S IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND THAT THE ADDITION DO NOT SUSTA IN, IS INCORRECT AND ERRONEOUS, AS NO SUCH MATERIAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS. 5. CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF OF RS.5,00,00 ON DEVELOPMEN T EXPENSES AND RS.6,61,000 ON LOAN CREDITORS OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEE N GIVEN BY LEARNED CIT(A). THROUGH THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITS CROSS-OBJECTION, THE ASSESSEE IS MERELY SUPPORTING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND THE RELIEFS GRANTED BY THEREIN, IN THE FACE OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF THE RE VENUE. 3. WE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND OTHER MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL IS THAT NO OPPORTUNITY WAS GI VEN BY THE CIT(A) WHILE ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, WHICH WAS IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES. IN THE COURSE OF HEARI NG ON THIS APPEAL, BOTH THE PARTIES CONCEDED THAT THE ENTIRE ISSUE MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE A DDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A), AND AD JUDICATE UPON THE SAME AFRESH. WE ARE INCLINED TO ACCEDE TO THIS REQ UEST OF THE PARTIES, AND ACCORDINGLY, SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF T HE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE, WE REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION OF THE SAME IN ACCO RDANCE WITH LAW, AND AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO T HE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, REVENUES GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.1260/HYD/12 & CO THEREIN SHRI AMMIREDDY SANJEEVA REDDY, KADAPA. 3 4. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC INDEPENDENT GROU ND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CROSS-OBJECTION, OTHER THAN SUP PORTING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WE FIND THE SAME TO BE INFRUCTUOUS, AND AS SUCH, THE CROSS- OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE AND CROSS-OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 03.01.2013 SD/- (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN ) SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) JUDICIAL MEMBER. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. DT/- 3 RD JANUARY, 2013 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI AMMIREDDY SANJEEVA REDDY, 2/15, BADVEL ROAD , MYDUKUR, KADAPA DIST. 2. INCOME - TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , PRODDATUR 3. 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) GUNTUR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX TIRUPATI 5 . THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT HYDERABAD `B.V.S.