Sharath Adsumillies, Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(5), Hyderabad

ITA 1487/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3214 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-06-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 10-03-2021
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 01-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Salary income; Revised return
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH SMC, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1487/HYD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2016 - 17 SHARATH ADSUMILLIE, HYDERABAD. PAN: BJJPA 4606 H VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12(5), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI A.V. RAGHURAM REVENUE BY: SHRI SANJEEV BHAGAT, DR DATE OF HEARING: 10/03/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16 /06/2021 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: THIS APPEAL IS FIELD BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) - 1, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO. 10358/2018 - 19/ITO 12(5)/CIT(A) - 1/HYD/2019 - 20, DATED 29/07/ 2019 PASSED U/S. 144 R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE AY 2016 - 17. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOUR GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL AND THEY ARE EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) - 1, HYDERABAD ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IS ERRONEOUS AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 2. THE CIT (A) ERRED IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT ISSUING SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR ENHANCEMENT. 2 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE ENHANCEMENT MADE BY THE CIT (A) W.R.T ALLEGED UNEXPLAI NED DEPOSITS OF RS. 36,85,530/ - IS ERRONEOUS AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 4. THE QUANTIFICATION OF THE BROKERAGE CHARGES AT RS. 9, 97,000/ - IS INCORRECT AND BASELESS. AT ANY RATE THE CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD EXPLAINABLE SOURCES FOR THE PAYMENTS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL EARNING SALARY INCOME FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 27/06/2016 ADMITTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 8,38,130/ - . SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED RETURN ON 24/04/2017 ADMITTING HIS TOT AL INCOME AS RS. 10,82,500/ - . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 8/12/2018 U/S. 144 OF THE ACT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO RESPOND TO THE NOTICE OF THE LD. AO. BASED ON THE MATERIALS BEFORE THE LD. AO, THE LD. AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 4,67,318/ - ESTIMATING THE PROFIT DERIVED FROM SALE OF SHARES / UNITS AND TREATED THE SAME AS SPECULATIVE INCOME. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) ENHANCED THE ADDITION TO RS. 34,95,530/ - . 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR VEHEMENTLY A RGUED BEFORE US STATING THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ENHANCED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT PROVIDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOW CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS PROVIDED U/S. 251(2) OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO BE PRESENT BEFORE THE LD. AO AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT DUE TO WHICH HE HAS PASSED AN EX PARTE 3 ORDER. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND VEHEMENTLY ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND PRAYED FOR CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A). 5. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. ON PERUSING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A), IT APPEARS THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS NOT ADHERED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 251(2) OF THE ACT. THE LD. AO HAS ALSO PASSED AN EX - PARTE ORDER DUE TO THE NON - COOPERATION OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I HEREBY REMIT BACK THE ENTIRE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD . AO FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION. AT THE SAME BREATH, I HEREBY CAUTION THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTLY COOPERATE BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES FAILING WHICH THEY SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERIT BASED ON THE MATER IALS ON RECORD. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREIN ABOVE. 7. BEFORE PARTING, IT IS WORTHWHILE TO MENTION THAT THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED AFTER 90 DAYS OF HEARING THE APPEAL, WHICH IS THOUGH AGAINST THE USUAL NORMS, I FIND IT APPROPRIATE, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE EXTRA - ORDINARY SITUATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE LOC K - DOWN DUE TO COVID - 19 PANDEMIC. WHILE DOING SO, I HAVE RELIED IN THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. JSW LTD. IN ITA NO.6264/M/2018 AND 6103/M/2018 FOR AY 2013 - 14 ORDER DATED 14TH MAY 2020. 4 PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH JUNE , 2021. SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 16 TH JUNE , 2021. OKK COPY TO: - 1) SRI SHARATH ADSUMILLIE, FLAT NO. 101, VIJAY DURGA RESIDENCY, KTR COLONY, BALAJI NAGAR, NIZAMPET, HYDERABAD 500 090. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12(5), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT (A) - 1, HYDERABAD. 4) THE PR. CIT - 1, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE