Arunkumar Sankineni , Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Suryapet

ITA 1453/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0109 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 23-12-2020
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 19-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Set aside
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

ITA NO 1453 OF 2019 ARUN KUMAR SANKINENI HYDERABA D PAGE 1 OF 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD SMC BENCH, HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1453/HYD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2016-17 SHRI ARUN KUMAR SANKINENI, SURYAPET PAN:CGEPS9858L VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 SURYAPET (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SMT. S. SANDHYA REVENUE BY : SRI SUNIL KUMAR PANDEY, DR DATE OF HEARING: 23/12/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31/12/2020 ORDER THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y 2016-17 AGA INST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-3, HYDERABAD, DATED 12.06. 2019. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, A N INDIVIDUAL, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y 2016-17 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.5,36,834/- WHICH COMPR ISED OF REMUNERATION OF RS.4,80,000/- RECEIVED FROM A PARTN ERSHIP FIRM M/S. S.K.R. CONSTRUCTION IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS O NE OF THE PARTNER AND THE INCOME OF RS.56,834/- AS INCOME FRO M OTHER SOURCES. 3. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY T HROUGH CAS AND DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3 ), AND ALSO AS VERIFIED FROM THE AIR DATA, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSITS TO THE TUNE OF RS.12,04,250/ -ON VARIOUS DATES IN HIS HDFC BANK BEARING A/C NO.1637100001804 4 AND ITA NO 1453 OF 2019 ARUN KUMAR SANKINENI HYDERABA D PAGE 2 OF 4 THAT THERE WAS NO MENTION ABOUT THIS ACCOUNT IN THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE NOR IN THE RETURN OF INCO ME. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THIS BANK A/C STA TEMENT ALONG WITH SOURCES FOR CASH DEPOSITS. SINE THERE WAS NO R ESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE, THE AO CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S NO SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF THE DEPOSIT OF RS.12,04,250/- AND THE SAME WAS BROUGHT TO TAX. AGG RIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A), BU T SINCE NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT ( A) WHEN THE NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS GIVEN, THE CIT (A) ALSO CONF IRMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPE AL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW . 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DECIDING THE APPEAL WITHOUT PROVIDING PROP ER OPPORTUNITY. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.12,04,2S0J- REPRESENTI NG CASH DEPOSITS INTO THE BANK BY APPLYING THE PROVISI ONS OF SEC.69A OF THE LT. ACT. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THAT THE APPELLANT POSSESS ED SUBSTANTIAL SOURCES AND DELETED THE ADDITION MADE. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE I.T. ACT. 6. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME O F HEARING. 4. THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING THROUGH VIDE O CONFERENCING. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT BOTH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF T HE CIT (A) ARE ITA NO 1453 OF 2019 ARUN KUMAR SANKINENI HYDERABA D PAGE 3 OF 4 EX-PARTE THE ASSESSEE AND PRAYED FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSITS. SHE HAS DRAWN MY ATTENTIO N TO THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE COPIES OF THE BANK A/C STATEMENT AND THE LEDGER IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S. S.K.R. CONSTRUCTION TO EXPLAI N THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS TO MAKE THE DEPOSITS INTO THE BANK A/C. SHE THEREFORE, PRAYED FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCE AND REMAND THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RECONSIDERATIO N. 6. THE LEARNED DR WAS ALSO HEARD. 7. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD, I FIND THAT BOTH THE ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS THE CIT (A) ORDERS ARE EX-PARTE THE ASSESSEE, AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF THE DEPOSITS. THEREFORE, I DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER T O ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT OR DER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DENOVO ASSESSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE GIVEN A FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 8. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST DECEMBER, 2020. SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 31 ST DECEMBER, 2020. VINODAN/SPS ITA NO 1453 OF 2019 ARUN KUMAR SANKINENI HYDERABA D PAGE 4 OF 4 COPY TO: 1 SHRI ARUNKUMAR SANKINENI, H.NO.1-2-270/13/A/72 KU DA ROAD, SURYAPET, NALGONDA 2 ITO WARD 1 KRISHNANAGAR COLONY, SURYAPET 3 CIT (A)-3 HYDERABAD 4 PR. CIT 3 HYDERABAD 5 THE DR, ITAT HYDERABAD 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER