Narasimha Reddy Koduru, Hyd, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-2(1), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 1311/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2392 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-03-2018
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K SRINIVAS REDDY
• Section: 133A; 148

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1311/HYD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 NARASIMHA REDDY KODURU, HYDERABAD. PAN ADFPK 0909A VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI K. SRINIVAS REDDY DATE OF HEARING : 05-03-2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16-03-2018 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 05/01/ 2016 OF CIT(A) - 10, HYDERABAD, FOR AY 2010-11. 2. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FIND THAT THIS CASE WAS ADJOURNED ON NUMBER OF OCCASIONS FROM 12/01/2017 TO 12/01/2018 D UE TO SOME OR THE OTHER REASONS AS MENTIONED IN THE ORDER SHEET. WHEN THE APPEAL IS POSTED FOR HEARING TODAY I.E. ON 05/03/2018, WHI CH WAS INFORMED TO BOTH THE PARTIES IN THE OPEN COURT, NONE APPEARED O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR THERE IS A REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE CASE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF B.N. BHTTACHARGEE & ANR., 118 ITR 461 THAT APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN ONLY FILING OF MEMO OF APPEAL BUT ALSO PURSUING IT EFFECTIVELY. IN CASES WHERE THE A SSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO PURSUE THE APPEAL, COURT/TRIBUNAL HAVE INHE RENT POWER TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION AS HELD BY H ONBLE HIGH COURT OF MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF M/S CHEMIPOL VS. UNION OF INDIA IN EXCISE 2 ITA NO. 1311 /HYD/2016 NARASIMHA REDDY KODURU APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2009. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLL OWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) LT D., (38 ITD 320) AND MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR (223 ITR 480), WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 3. EVEN ON MERITS, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESS EE, DIRECTOR OF M/S KNR CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD., FILED HIS RETURN OF INCO ME ON 15/10/2010 FOR THE AY 2010-11 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1, 61,47,110/-. A SURVEY U/S 133A WAS CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF TH E COMPANY M/S KNR CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD. ON 02/11/2010. DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED ADDITIONAL INCOM E OF RS. 1,40,00,000/- IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED RS. 1.4 CRORE AS ADDITIONAL INCOME FOR AY 2010-11, WHICH HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 ON 15/07/2013 AND SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/S 143(2) DATED 30/12/201 3 WAS ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOT ICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE INFORMATION AS CALLED FOR. 3.1 DURING THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE RETRA CTED FROM HIS ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL INCOME VIDE HIS DISPOSITION DATED 20/03/2014 STATED THAT HE WAS UNDER PRESSURE AND WAS NOT PHYSI CALLY AND MENTALLY SOUND WHILE ADMITTING ADDITIONAL INCOME. H E STATED THAT THE REAL PROFITS FROM CONTRACTS VARY FROM 5.5% TO 7.39% AS REFLECTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. ACCORDING TO AO, ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCES, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, INVOICE/VOUCH ERS ETC. FOR VERIFICATION OF THE CLAIMS OF EXPENDITURE. THE AO T HEREFORE OPINED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN BUSINESS PROFITS @ 3.64% OF GROSS RECEIPTS WHICH IS VERY LOW COMPARED TO THE ASSESSEES OWN AD MISSION OF PROFITS FROM 5.5% TO 7.39%. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITI ONAL INCOME ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDI NGS, WAS TAKEN BY THE AO FOR ARRIVING AT REASONABLE FIGURES OF PRO FIT. THUS, THE AO DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 3,01,47,110/- (RS. 1,61,47,110 + 1,40,00,000). ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. 3 ITA NO. 1311 /HYD/2016 NARASIMHA REDDY KODURU 4. SINCE, THERE IS NO REPRESENTATION FROM THE ASSESSEE AND THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A)) ARE UNCONTROVERTED, WE UPH OLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH MARCH, 2018. SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER AC COUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 16 TH MARCH, 2018. KV COPY TO:- 1) NARASIMHA REDDY KODURU, C/O SHRI AV RAGHURAM, ADVOCATE, 610 BABUKHAN ESTATE, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERAB AD 500 001. 2) ITO, WARD 2(1), IT TOWERS, AC GUARDS, HYD. 3) CIT(A) 10, HYD. 4) CIT (IT & TP) HYD. 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., H YDERABAD. 6) GUARD FILE