Mir Mazharuddin,Hyd, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 1279/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0850 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P CHANDRA SEKHAR
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 13; 68

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1276 TO 1279/HYD/2016 A.Y. 2005 - 06 TO 2008 - 09 MIR MAZHARUDDIN, HYDERABAD. PAN: ADYPM 1436 D VS. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SRI MOHD. AFZAL REVENUE BY SRI P. CHANDRASEKHAR, DR DATE OF HEARING: 17/06/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13 /07/2021 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY , A.M: THE CAPTIONED FOUR APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 2, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO.0119, 0118 , 0117 & 0116 /2014 - 15, DATED 28/06/2016 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 153A R.W.S 254 OF THE ACT FOR THE AYS 2005 - 06 TO 2008 - 09. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SIX GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 2005 - 06 AND THEY ARE EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), IS AGAINST THE LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE AND PROBABILITIES OF CASE. 2 2. THE LE ARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONF IRMING AN AMOUNT OF RS.13,66,476/ - (RS.6,59,572 + RS. 2,0 6 ,904 + 5,00,000) U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT. 3. 3. THE LE ARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIA TED THAT I N RESPECT OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 6,59,572/ - STANDING IN THE NAME OF WASEEM ATHER, HIS WIFE S M T. KANEE Z ATHER, HAS FILE D CONF IRM ATION LETTER BY CONFIRMING THE TRANSACTION. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT TH E APPELLA NT FILED A CONFIRMATION LETTER DT: 27.01.2014, CONFIR M ING THE LOAN AMOUNTING TO RS.2,06,904/ - FROM THE LOAN C REDITOR SRI. KHAJA HAMEEDUDDIN. 5. THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE APPELLANT FILED A CONFIRMATION LETTER DT: 27.01 .2014 , CONF IRMI NG THE LOAN AMOUNTING TO RS.5,00,000/ - FROM THE LOAN CREDI TOR SRI. JAMEEL QUADRI. 6. THE APPE LLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, AMEND OR MODIFY THE ABOVE GROU NDS O F APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE IF IT IS CONSIDERED NECESSAR Y. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED NINE GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 2006 - 07 AND THEY ARE EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), IS AGAINST THE LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE AND PROBABILITIES OF CASE. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS) ERRED I N CONFIRMING AN AMOUNT OF RS.36,10,000 / - (RS.1,50,000 + RS.1,60,000 + 10,00,000 + RS.9,00,000 + RS.3,00,000 + RS.11,00,000 / - ) U / S 68 OF THE IT ACT. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT IN RESPECT OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,50 , 000 / - STANDING IN THE NAME OF MUJTABA ALI, THAT HE HAS PRO VIDED CONFIRMATION LETTER, BANK STATEMENT AND ALSO CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTION IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT IN RESPECT OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,60,000 / - STANDING IN THE NAME OF SMT. FOUZIA SULTANA, THAT SHE HAS PROVIDED CONFIRMATION LETTER, BANK STATEMENT AND ALSO CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTION IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT IN RESPECT OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.10,00,000 / - STANDING IN THE NAME OF SMT. RAHMATHUNISSA, THAT SHE HAS PROVIDED CONFIRMATION LETTER AND BANK STATEMENT CONFIRMING THE TRANSACTION. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT IN RESPECT OF AN AMO UNT OF RS.9 , 00 , 000 / - STANDING IN THE NAME OF SMT. 3 REHANA HAYATH, THAT SHE HAS PROVIDED CONFIRMATION LETTER AND BANK STATEMENT CONFIRMING THE TRANSACTION. 7. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT IN RESPECT OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.3 ,00,000 / - STANDING IN THE NAME OF SMT. ATHIYA BEGUM, THAT SHE HAS PROVIDED CONFIRMATION LETTER AND BANK STATEMENT CONFIRMING THE TRANSACTION. 8. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT IN RESPECT OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.11,00,000 / - S TANDING IN THE NAME OF SRI. ABDUL KHALIQ, THAT HE HAS PROVIDED CONFIRMATION LETTER, BANK STATEMENT AND ALSO CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTION IN HIS STATEMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, AMEND OR MODIFY THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, IF IT IS CONSIDERED NECESSARY. 4 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED NINE GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 2007 - 08 AND THEY ARE EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS), IS AGAINST THE LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE AND PROBABILITIES OF CASE. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING AN AMOUNT OF RS. 23,67,999 / - (RS. 11,32,999 + RS. 11,35,000 + 1 ,00,000) U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT IN RESPECT OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 11,32,999 / - STANDING IN THE NAME OF JUHINA KHAN, THAT SHE HAS PROVIDED CONFIRMATION LETTER BY CONFIRMING THE TRANSACTION. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT IN RESPECT OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 11,35,000 / - STANDING IN THE NAME OF SRI SYED ATHER, THAT HE HAS PROVIDED CONFIRMATION LETTER BY CONFIRMING THE TRANSACTION. 5. THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT IN RES PECT OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,00,000 / - STANDING IN THE NAME OF SRI NASEER FASIUDDIN, THAT HE HAS PROVIDED CONFIRMATION LETTER AND A CERTIFICATE FROM BANK CONFIRMING THE TRANSACTION. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, AMEND OR MODIFY THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF A PPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE IF IT IS CONSIDERED NECESSARY. 4 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED NINE GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 2008 - 09 AND THEY ARE EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: 1. 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), IS AGAINST THE LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE AND PROBABILITIES OF CASE. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING AN AMOUNT OF RS. 48,60,000 / - (RS. 10,00,000 + RS. 20,00,000 + 4,6 0,000 + RS. 10,00, 000 + RS. 4,00,000 ) U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT IN RESPECT OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 10,00,000 / - STANDING IN THE NAME OF FAREES MOHIUDDIN, THAT HE HAS PROVIDED CONFIRMATION LETTER AND BANK STATEMENT CONFIRMING THE TRANSACTION. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT IN RESPECT OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 20,00,000 / - STANDING IN THE NAME OF SRI REHAN, THAT HE HAS PROVIDED CONFIRMATION LETTER AND BANK STATEMENT CO NFIRMING THE TRANSACTION. 5. THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT IN RESPECT OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 4,60,000/ - STANDING IN THE NAME OF SRI MIR ZUBAIR AHMED, THAT HE HAS PROVIDED CONFIRMATION LETTER AND A CERTIFICATE FROM BANK AND ALSO C ONFIRMED THE TRANSACTION IN HIS STATEMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT IN RESPECT OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 10, 00 , 000 / - STANDING IN THE NAME OF SRI SIDDIQI , THAT HE HAS PROVIDED CONFIRMATION LETTER AND BANK STATEMENT AND ALSO CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTION IN HIS STATEMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT IN RESPECT OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 4 ,00,000 / - STANDING IN THE NAME OF SMT. RAFIYA SULTANA , THAT SHE HAS PROVIDED CONFIRMATION LETTER AND BANK STATEMENT CONFIRMING THE TRANSACTION. 8. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, AMEND OR MODIFY THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, IF IT IS CONSIDERED NECESSARY. 6. A T THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAD MADE ENORMOUS ADDITIONS AND SUSTAINED THE SAME BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PROVIDE PROPER EXPLANATION BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORIT IES AT THE TIME OF HEARING . IT WAS FURTHER 5 SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES FINANCIAL CONDITION IS PRECARIOUS AND IF THE ADDITION IS SUSTAINED IT WILL LEAD TO IRREPARABLE LOSS TO THE ASSESSEE . IT WAS FURTHER PLEADED THAT PRESENTLY THE ASSESSEE IS IN POSSESSION OF ALL THE REQUISITE PARTICULARS THAT IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. HENCE, IT WAS REQUESTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION. THE LD. DR STRONGLY OBJE CTED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND REQUESTED FOR CONFIRMING THE ORDERS OF THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 7. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, THOUGH WE ARE NOT MUCH CONVINCED WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR . HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE POOR FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE NATURE OF ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL , IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY REMIT THE ENTIRE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION GRANTING LIBERTY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE APPROPRIATE EVIDENCE IN OR DER TO JUSTIFY HIS CLAIM WHICH SHALL BE CONSIDERED BY THE LD. AO WHILE PASSING HIS ORDER. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREIN ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 13 TH JULY, 2021. SD/ - SD/ - (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 13 TH JULY 2021. OKK 6 COPY TO: - 1) MIR MAZHARUDDIN, C/O. MOHD. AFZAL, ADVOCATE, 11 - 5 - 465, SHERSONS RESIDENCY, FLAT NO.402, CRIMINAL COURT ROAD, RED HILLS, HYDERABAD 500 004. 2) THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), SIGNATURE TOWERS, HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT (A) - 2, HYDERABAD. 4) THE PR. CIT - 2, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE