G. Sesha Reddy. Kadapa, Kadapa V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kadapa

ITA 1561/Hyd/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2480 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 08-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: G VENKATESWARLU
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Revision of order; Salary income; Principle of natural justice; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 68; 263; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1561/HYD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 G. SESHA REDDY, KADAPA PAN ABKPR 4035 M VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, KADAPA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G. VENKATESWARLU REVENUE BY : SHRI R. MOHAN REDDY DATE OF HEARING 28/02/2018 DA TE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28/02/2018 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 2 ND JUNE, 2017 OF LD. CIT(A), KURNOOL RELATING TO AY 2 008-09 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL: 1 THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IS ERRONEO US BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT ISSUING N OTICE REQUIRING TO MAKE GOOD THE DEFICIENCY IN THE APPEAL . HAVING TAKEN THE APPEAL ON RECORD AND ISSUING THE NOTICE O F HEARING, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPEAL FILED IS DEFECTIVE. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN SUMMARILY DIS MISSING THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT NEITHER APP EARED NOR FILED SUBMISSIONS. 4. HAVING ADMITTED THE APPEAL. THE LEARNED CIT (APP EALS) OUGHT TO HAVE DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS ON THE BAS IS OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL 10 FROM NO .35. 2 ITA NO. 1561 /HYD/2017 G. SESHA REDDY 5 THE HON'BLE IT AT IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE MAY PLEASE RESTORE THE APPEAL TO THE LEARNED THE CIT(A) DIRECTING HIM TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER GIVING ONE FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO MAKE GOOD THE DEFIC IENCY AND TO MAKE SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEA L. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE, ASSESSEE A P ARTNER IN M/S PULVERISERS, KADAPA, BESIDES HAVING SALARY INCOME F ROM THE FIRM, HE DERIVES INCOME FROM INTEREST RECEIPTS AND MISCELLAN EOUS JOB WORKS. HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2008-09 ON 31/ 03/2010 ADMITTING INCOME OF RS. 2,05,250/- IN ADDITION TO AGRICULTURA L INCOME OF RS. 1,10,250/-. THE CASE WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) ON 08 /12/2010. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UN DER CASS AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 2 7/12/2010 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 2,89,660/- BY MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 31,411 TOWARDS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BANK STATEMENT AND TRIAL BALANCE AND ANOTHER AMOUNT OF R S. 50,000/- TOWARDS LOW DRAWINGS. 2.1 THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS OF THE ASSES SEE WERE SUMMONED U/S 263 OF THE ACT. AS PER THE DIRECTIONS IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT, THE AO PASSED AN ORDER U /S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, DATED 21/01/2014 DETER MINED THE NET ASSESSED INCOME AT RS. 15,71,910/- BY MAKING ADDITI ON OF RS. 11,75,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS U/S 68 OF T HE ACT. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, THE ASSESSEE PREFE RRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT ON PERUSAL OF FORM NO. 35, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 144 AND NOTIC E OF DEMAND U/S 156 OF THE ACT ALONGWITH FORM NO. 35, HENCE, THE AP PEAL FILED WAS DEFECTIVE. FURTHER, HE OBSERVED THAT NOTICES OF HEA RING WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR ON TWO OCCASIONS, HOWEVER, T HE ASSESSEE 3 ITA NO. 1561 /HYD/2017 G. SESHA REDDY NEITHER APPEARED NOR FILED SUBMISSIONS. THUS, THE A PPEAL WAS DEFECTIVE AS WELL AS NON-APPEARANCE BY THE ASSESSEE . 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESS EE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSE E BEFORE US IS THAT THE CIT(A) WITHOUT ISSUING NOTICE REQUIRING TO MAKE GOOD THE DEFICIENCY IN THE APPEAL, DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON T HE GROUND THAT THE APPEAL FILED IS DEFECTIVE, WHICH IS NOT PROPER AND NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH NATURAL JUSTICE. FURTHER, THE LD. AR CONTENDE D THAT HAVING ADMITTED THE APPEAL, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DISPO SED OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS AN D GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN FORM NO. 35. HE, THEREFORE, PLEADED THE BENCH, I N THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE, THE APPEAL MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER GIVING FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO CURE THE DEFEC TS IN THE FORM NO. 35, AS ALLEGED BY THE CIT(A). 7. LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDER O F CIT(A). 8. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE L D. AR OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS A FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. AR. THEREFORE, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, WE REMIT TH E APPEAL BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERI TS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING ONE MORE OPPORT UNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT HIS CASE ON MERITS AFTER RECT IFYING THE DEFECTS IN FORM NO. 35. 4 ITA NO. 1561 /HYD/2017 G. SESHA REDDY 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS T REATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2018. SD/- SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) (S. RIFAUR RAHM AN) VICE PRESIDENT A CCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2018 KV COPY TO:- 1) G. SESHA REDDY, D.NO. 7/270, NGO COLONY, KADAPA - 516001 2) ITO, WARD 1, KADAPA. 3) CIT(A), KURNOOL 4) PR. CIT, KURNOOL 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD. 6)) GUARD FILE /