Narasaiah Gundu , Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(1) , Hyderabad

ITA 154/Hyd/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7127 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 18-03-2021
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALURU VENKATA RAO
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 20

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH SMC , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 154 /HYD/20 20 AYS: 20 16 - 17 NARASAIAH GUNDU, HYDERABAD. PAN: BEKPG 5161 D VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 14(1), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI K.A. SAI PRASAD REVENUE BY: SHRI ALURU VENKATA RAO, DR DATE OF HEARING: 1 8 /03/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08 /04/2021 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, A.M: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 6, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO. 10476/2018 - 19/A3/CIT(A) - 6, DATED 25/11/2019 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2016 - 17. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED S IX GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL AND THEY ARE EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: - 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT EITHER IN LAW OR ON FACTS AND IN BOTH. 2 2. THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 36,00,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF LICENSE FEES CONTRIBUTED BY ALL PARTNERS AS WELL AS CONTRIBUTION OF RS. 5,85,000/ - BY THE APPELLANT THROUGH HIS BANK ACCOUNT. 4. THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT CORRECT IN OBSERVING THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT FILE COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE OTHER PARTNERS IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE PARTNERSHIP DEED AND AUTHORISATION LETTER FILED INDICATED ALL THE DETAILS. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THA T AS CLAIMED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF THE APPELLANT IS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT PRIORITY THE CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE OTHER PARTNERS REGARDING THEIR CONSTRUCTIONS MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 3 . AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS HE WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS ONLY NOW . THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LD. AO WHICH WAS FURTHER SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT (A). IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT D UE TO SEVERAL CONSTRAINTS THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO FURNISH THE SAME BEFORE THE LD. A.O. ON THE EARLIER INSTANCE. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO AVOID MISCARRIAGE OF THE JUSTICE OTHERWISE IT WOULD BRING IRREPARABLE LOSS TO THE ASSESSEE. 3 4 . THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND, VEHEMENTLY ARGUED FOR SUSTAINING THE ORDERS OF THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES SINCE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE PROVIDED PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. 5 . I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFUL LY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. ON PERUSING THE ORDER OF THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND THEREFORE, THE REVENUE HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO MAKE SUBSTANTI AL ADDITIONS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS LAPSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT APPRECIABLE. HOWEVER, S INCE NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED FRESH EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND SINCE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES IS SUBSTANTIAL AND MAY BRING IRREPARABLE LOSS TO THE ASSESSEE , IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I HEREBY REMIT THE ENTIRE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO FOR DE - NOVO CONSIDERATION WITH DIRECTION TO ADMIT AND EXAMINE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERIT. I ALSO CAUTION THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTLY CO - OPERATE BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES FAILING WHICH THEY SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER BASED ON THE MATER IALS ON RECORD. 4 6 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 08 TH APRIL, 2021. SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 08 TH APRIL , 2021. OKK COPY TO: - 1) GUNDU NARASAIAH C/O. KATRAPATI & ASSOCIATES, 1 - 1 - 298/2/B/3, IST FLOOR, ASHOK NAGAR, HYDERABAD. 2) ITO, WARD - 14(1), IT TOWERS, AC GUARDS, MASAB TANK, HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT (A) - 6, HYDERABAD. 4) THE PR. CIT - 6, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE