Gunda Rajeshwar Rao, Warangal, Warangal V. ITO, Ward-1, Warangal, Warangal

ITA 1493/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2566 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K J RAO

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1493/HYD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 GUNDA RAJESHWAR RAO, WARANGAL, PAN ABKPG 3281 C VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, WARANGAL (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI K.J. RAO DATE OF HEARING : 20-04-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26-04-2017 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST O RDER DATED 28/07/2016 OF LD. CIT(A) - 3, HYDERABAD FOR AY 2009 -10. 2. THERE IS A DELAY OF 13 DAYS IN FILING THIS APPEA L BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT EXPLAI NING THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY. UPON HEARING THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARI NG ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE LD. D.R. AND ON PERUSAL OF THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE AFFIDAVIT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS ON ACCOUNT OF SUFFICIENT CAUSE. 3. THOUGH THE CASE WAS POSTED FROM TIME TO TIME, N ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND CAREFULLY PERUSED T HE RECORD. ASSESSEE MAINLY DERIVES INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. FOR THE AY UNDER CONSIDERATION, HE DECLARED TOTAL INCOME OF RS . 1,65,000/-. 2 ITA NO. 1493 /HYD/2016 GUNDA RAJESHWAR RAO, WARANGAL DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS, AO NOTIC ED CERTAIN CASH DEPOSITS IN SB ACCOUNT OF ICICI BANK. WHEN CALLED U PON TO EXPLAIN, IT WAS STATED THAT THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS RELATES TO HUF AND NO PART OF IT RELATES TO HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. ASSE SSEE WAS AGAIN ASKED TO FURNISH BANK STATEMENT, DETAILS OF SUNDRY DEBTOR S, ETC. THOUGH, THE CASE WAS POSTED FROM TIME TO TIME, NONE APPEARED FO R THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT WAS TREATED AS ASSESSEES UNEXPLAINED INCOME AND ACCORDINGLY ASSES SMENT WAS COMPLETED BY DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 16,72,200/-. 5. THOUGH, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE AO BEFORE THE CIT(A) BY FILING AN APPEAL, NONE APPEARED FOR THE A SSESSEE AND NO MATERIAL WAS FURNISHED TO CONTRADICT THE CONCLUSION S OF THE AO EXCEPT STATING THAT HUF WAS ASSESSED TO INCOME-TAX FOR THE AY 2005-06, WHICH WAS SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, WHEREIN THE HUF FILE D STATEMENT OF RECEIPTS & PAYMENTS AND STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS SHOWIN G THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS OF MORE THAN RS. 20 LAKHS. 5.1 SINCE NO EVIDENCE WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) A LSO, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED BY OBSERVING A S UNDER: 5. AS PER GROUNDS OF APPEAL ITSELF, THE HUF WAS LA ST ASSESSED TO TAX IN A.Y.2005-06. THE FUND AVAILABILI TY OF A.Y.2005-06 CANNOT BE GIVEN CREDIT IN A.Y.2009-10. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF GROUNDS OF AP PEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE REJECTED. 6. EVEN BEFORE US NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS REP RESENTATIVE APPEARED AND NO MATERIAL WAS FURNISHED TO CONTRADIC T THE FINDINGS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 3 ITA NO. 1493 /HYD/2016 GUNDA RAJESHWAR RAO, WARANGAL 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH APRIL, 2017. SD/- SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) VICE PRESIDENT A CCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED:27 TH APRIL, 2017. KV COPY TO:- 1) GUNDA RAJESHWAR RAO, C/O G.S. MADHAVA RAO & CO., CHARTERED INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, WA RANGAL. 2) ITO, WARD 1, WARANGAL. 3) CIT(A) 3, HYDERABAD 4) PR. CIT - 3, HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., H YDERABAD. 6) GUARD FILE