PCMR Infrastructure Private Limited , Hyderabad V. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1369/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0561 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 03-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y.V.S.T SAI
• Keywords: FORM 26AS
• Section: 142(1); 143(2)

Judgement Text

ITA NO 1369 OF 2019 PCMR INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD HYD ERABAD PAGE 1 OF 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B BENCH, HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1369/HYD/20119 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2016-17 PCMR INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD HYDERABAD PAN:AAECP3656L VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 16(2) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI MOHD. AFZAL REVENUE BY : SRI Y.V.S.T SAI, CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING: 25/02/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 03/03/2021 ORDER PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y 2016-17 AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-4, HYDERABAD, DATED 19.6. 2019. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONTRACTS, E-FILED ITS R ETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y 2016-17 ON 14.10.2016 ADMITTING TOTAL I NCOME OF RS.1,08,63,130/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTIN Y UNDER CASS AND ACCORDINGLY, NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) WERE ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, TH E ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE REQUISITE INFORMATION CALLED FOR, ELE CTRONICALLY. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, THE AO NOTICED THAT FORM 26AS REFLECTED HIGHER GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.33,99,73,632/- AS AGAIN ST THE RECEIPTS SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AT RS.19,47,65,094/-. WHEN THE ITA NO 1369 OF 2019 PCMR INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD HYD ERABAD PAGE 2 OF 4 ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO CLARIFY THE DIFFERENCE IN THE RECEIPTS AMOUNTING TO RS.14,52,08,538/-, THE ASSESSEE REPLIE D THAT THE TRANSACTIONS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.14,52,08,538/- ARE NOT RELATED TO IT AND THAT THEY WERE WRONGLY CREDITED TO ITS 26AS. BUT SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBSTANTIATE THIS CLAIM WITH ANY D OCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.14,52,08,538/- WAS T REATED AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME AND BROUGHT TO TAX. AGGRIEVED, T HE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A), BUT AS NONE APPEARED BEFORE THE CIT (A) ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE C IT (A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS AGAINST THE LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE AND PROBABILITIES OF CASE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED TH AT THE CONTRACTEE M/S. RAMKY INFRASTRUTURE ERRONEOUSLY REFLECTED AN AMOUNT OF RS.30,43,67,015/- IN THE FOR MS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT, AS AGAINST THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF RS,15,91,58,477/- AS PER THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE RAMKY INFRASTRUCTURE LTD IN THE BOOK S OF ASSESSEE. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT ACCORDING ONE M ORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO CLARIFY THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER FORM NO.26AS, WHICH IS RECTIFIE D BY THE CONTRACTEE, SUBSEQUENTLY BY REFLECTING THE CORRECT AMOUNT AND CORRECT AMOUNT IS REFLECTED. 4. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDE R OF THE AO WHEREIN, AN ADDITION OF RS.14,52,08,538 IS MADE SOLELY ON THE BASIS FORM NO 26AS INSPITE OF PRODUCING ACCOUNT COPY OF THE RAMKY INFRASTRUCTURE LTD IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE WHICH ARE AUDITED. 5. THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE VERIFIED THE TURNOVER REFLECTED IN FORM NO.26AS OR SHOULD HAVE DIRECTED THE AO TO VERIFY THE SAME, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT IS NOT CORRECT. 6. 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 CONSIDE RED NECESSARY. ITA NO 1369 OF 2019 PCMR INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD HYD ERABAD PAGE 3 OF 4 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT IF GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS CASE, THE ASSES SEE WILL BE IN A POSITION TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE IN ITS TURNOVER AND PRAYED FOR REMAND OF THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (A). 4. THE LEARNED DR OPPOSED THE SAME STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RESPONDED TO THE NOTICES GIVEN BY THE CIT (A) AND THEREFORE, NO FURTHER OPPORTUNITY IS TO BE GIVE N. 5. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAI NED THE DISCREPANCIES EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE THE CI T (A). THEREFORE, ONLY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMAND THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE A SSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN A FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND T HE ASSESSEE SHALL ALSO COOPERATE WITH THE AO BY PRODUCING THE N ECESSARY DETAILS BEFORE THE AO FOR AN EARLY COMPLETION OF T HE ASSESSMENT. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 RD MARCH, 2021. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 3 RD MARCH, 2021. VINODAN/SPS ITA NO 1369 OF 2019 PCMR INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD HYD ERABAD PAGE 4 OF 4 COPY TO: 1 PCMR INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD C/O MOHD. AFZAL, ADVOCA TE, NO.402, SHERSONS RESIDENCY, 11-5-465, CRIMINAL COURT ROAD, RED HILLS, HYDERABAD 500004 2 ACIT, CIRCLE 16(2) HYDERABAD 3 CIT (A)-4 HYDERABAD 4 PR. CIT 4 HYDERABAD 5 THE DR, ITAT HYDERABAD 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER