Rajasekhar Buggaveeti, Hyderabad V. Addl.CIT, Range-9, Hyderabad

ITA 1506/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6021 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A SITARAMA RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

ITA NOS 1506 AND 1526 OF 2012 RAJASEKHAR BUGAVEETI HYDERABAD PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1506/HYD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) SRI BUGGAVEETI RAJASEKHAR HYDERABAD PAN: AEEPB 7610 R VS ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-9 HYDERABAD ITA NO.1526/HYD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 9(1) HYDERABAD VS SRI BUGGAVEETI RAJASEKHAR HYDERABAD PAN: AEEPB 7610 R FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI S. RAMA RAO, FOR REVENUE : SHRI A. SITARAMA RAO, DR O R D E R PER SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS FOR THE A.Y 2009-10 DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) 27.07.2012. 2. THE COMMON ISSUE THAT ARISES FOR OUR CONSIDERATI ON IN BOTH THESE APPEALS IS THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA ) OF THE ACT. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FIL ED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO THE FACT THAT, THE RECIPIENT OF THE ROY ALTY/FRANCHISE FEE I.E. APTECH LTD HAS GIVEN EVIDENCE THAT, THE AMOUNT RECEIVED HAS BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND HAS BEEN OFFERED TO DATE OF HEARING : 10.11.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.11.2016 ITA NOS 1506 AND 1526 OF 2012 RAJASEKHAR BUGAVEETI HYDERABAD PAGE 2 OF 3 TAX. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS EVIDENCE WAS NOT AV AILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE TH E AO AS WELL AS THE CIT (A) AND THAT THE PAYEE HAS GIVEN THIS EV IDENCE ON 9.11.2016. WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS THIS EVIDENCE GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER. AS THIS EVIDENCE HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH DISPOSAL IN ACCORDANCE WIT H LAW. 3. WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO.4, THE ONLY ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE DISAL LOWANCE OF 20% IS HIGH AND THAT THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE WAS INCU RRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO IN TERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THE ABSE NCE OF ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE US. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH NOVEMBER, 2016. SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 16 TH NOVEMBER, 2016. VINODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1 SHRI RAJASEKHAR BUGGAVEETI, PROP. CREATIVE MULTIM EDIA SERVICES, NO.16-11-477/6/1/A, 4 TH FLOOR, SAI TOWERS, MAIN ROAD, DILSUKHNAGAR, HYDERABAD 500036 2 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 9(1) BL OCK NO.1B, INCOME TAX TOWERS, AC GUARDS HYDERABAD-4 ITA NOS 1506 AND 1526 OF 2012 RAJASEKHAR BUGAVEETI HYDERABAD PAGE 3 OF 3 3 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 9(1) HY DERABAD 4 CIT (A)-VI HYDERABAD 5 CIT-VI HYDERABAD 6 THE DR, ITAT HYDERABAD 7 GUARD FILE BY ORDER