Tumu Rajkumar , Hyderabad V. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1291/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6955 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 16-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y V S T SAI
• Section: 143(3); 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B BENCH : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1291/HYD./2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2016 - 17 SHRI TUMU RAJKUMAR VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) HYDERABAD. HYDERABAD [PAN: ACAPT4169M] ( APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : NONE FOR REVENUE : SH. YVST SAI, CIT, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 15/02/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06 /04/2021 O R D E R PER S.S. GODARA, J.M. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY 2016 - 17 ARISES AGAINST THE CIT(A) - 11, HYDERABADS ORDER DATED 3105.2019 IN CASE NO.10472/2019 - 20 INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). CASE CALLED TWICE . N ONE APPEARS AT ASSESSEES BEHEST. WE ACCORDINGLY P ROCEED EX PARTE. ITA NO. 1291/HYD/2019 AY 2016 - 17 SRI TUMU RAJ KUMAR, HYD. 2 WE HAVE HEARD L EARNE D CIT, DR SHRI YVST SAI AND PERUSED CASE FILE/ RECORDS. 2. THE ASSESSEES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE CANVASSED IN THE INSTANT APPEAL SEEKS TO REVERSE BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTION ADDING AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,92,447/ - REPRESENTING DIFFERENCE IN CAR LOAN A/C BEING THE EXCESS OF INCOME OVER LIABILITY. THE CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED THE ENTIRE ISSUE AS UNDER. 5.0. GROUND NO.4 IS RAISED WITH REFERENCE TO DIFFERENCE IN HDFC CAR LOAN AMOUNT AS PER STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS AND LOAN STATEMENT, AS UNEXPLAINED. THE AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN AN AMOUNT OF LIABILITY TOWARDS HDFC INNOVA CAR LOAN AT RS.7,65,357/ - . HOWEVER, AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE HDFC BANK LOAN STATEMENT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING A LIABILITY OF RS.4,71,910/ - ONLY. ACCORDINGLY, THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF RS.2,93,447/ - (7,65,357 MINUS 4,71,910) W AS ADDED BEING THE DIFFERENCE OF INCOME OVER LIABILITY. 5.1) IN COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE AR SUBMITTED AS UNDER: THE APPELLANT SUBMIT THAT HE DO NOT HAVE ANY BUSINESS, AND DO NOT MAINTAIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, AND THE SAME IS EXPLAINED TO THE AO, IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEN THE AO, ASKED TO PREPARE A LIABILITIES/STATEMENT OF ASSETS/AFFAIRS, AS ON 31.03.2016. AS THE ASSESSEE DO NOT HAVE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, OR BALANCE SHEET, HIS AR HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED, THE AFFAIRS OF ALL ASSETS/LIABILITIES AS ON 31.03.2016, FACTORING APPROXIMATE VALUES, IN THE STATEMENT, AND ARRIVED AT 'CAPITAL', AS A BALANCING FIGURE. IN SUCH ESTIMATED VALUES/MADE TO TALLY, THE LIABILITY OF VEHICLE LOAN, IS SHOWN @ RS. 7.65 LAKHS, EQUAL TO SOME 30 (APPROX.) EMI'S OF RS. 25,500/ - EACH, INCLUDING FUTURE INTEREST. HOWEVER, AS PER HDFC BANK LETTER, OBTAINED LATER, THE O/S BALANCE WAS RS. 4,71,910/ - . AS THE ASSESSEE GETS RENT FROM SBI, REGULARLY, THE SAME IS ADJUSTED/PAID TO BANK EMI FOR VEHICLE LOAN, AND THE ASSESSEE THUS DO NOT HAVE A TRACK OF EMI'S DUE OR PENDING, AND WHILE INFORMING TO THE AR, ABOUT VEHICLE 'LOAN', SAID SUM, 30 EMI ARE STILL PAYABLE AND THE SAME A RE TAKEN BY AR, IN THE SAID STATEMENT, BUT THESE ARE NOT EXACT. THE LEARNED A.O, IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 2,93,447/ - , BEING DIFFERENCE IN HDFC CAR LOAN AMOUNT AS PER STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS AND LOAN STATEMENT, AS UNEXPLAINED, WI THOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT EARNED ANY INCOME OUT OF SUCH DIFFERENCE, AND IF CORRECTLY STATED, ONLY THE CAPITAL BALANCE (ARRIVED), WOULD HAVE BEEN HIGHER TO THAT EXTENT. ITA NO. 1291/HYD/2019 AY 2016 - 17 SRI TUMU RAJ KUMAR, HYD. 3 5.2) I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE S UBMISSIONS. THE ASSESSEE IN COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY E VIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE AMOUNT OF LOAN SANCTIONED, DATE OF SANCTIONED, NUMBER OF EMIS AND AMOUNT OF EMIS FIXED FOR REPAYMENT OF ABOVE CAR LOAN. MOREOVER, WHEN THE HDFC BANK HAS CERTIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO REPAY A FURTHER AMOUNT OF RS.4,71,910/ - ONLY TOWARDS CAR LOAN, THEN THAT BECOMES THE FINAL LIABILITY. THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT IT HAS PAID SOME ADVANCE EMIS SHOULD ACTUALLY BRING DOWN THE LIABILITY MORE THAN WHAT H D FC HAS CERTIFIED. HOWEVER THE BANK HAS CLEARLY CERTIFIED THAT THE LIABILITY TOWARDS CAR WAS RS.4,71,910/ - ONLY. HENCE, THE AO WAS CORRECT IN BRINGING THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF RS.2,93,447/ - AND MAKING THE ADDITION AS EXCESS - OF INCOME O VER LIABILITY. THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 3. IT THUS EMERGES WITH THE ABLE ASSISTANCE OF L EARNE D CIT D.R. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY UPHELD THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION AFTER DUE VERIFICATION OF THE CORRESPONDING LOAN ACCOUNT ON NETTING BASIS . THIS CLINCHING ASPECT HAD NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED IN THE ASSESSEES AVERMENTS IN THE INSTANT APPEAL. WE THUS FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE FAILS IN HIS SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND THEREFORE. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 06/ 04 /2021. SD/ - SD/ - ( L.P. SAHU) (S.S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 06 TH APRIL, 2021 *GMV COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SRI TUMU RAJ KUMAR, C/O MANOJ DAGA & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, FLAT NO.301, 3 RD FLOOR, SRI LAKSHMI TOWERS, ROAD NO.10, BANJARA HILLS, H YDERABAD 500 034 . 2. (I) ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD (II) ACIT, CENTRAL RANGE 1 , HYDERABAD 3 . CIT(A) - 11, HYDERAB AD 4. PR.CIT, CENTRAL, HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT HYDERABAD 6. GUARD FILE