P. Srinivas Goud, Hyderabad V. ITO,Ward 11(4), Hyderabad

ITA 1571/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6062 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 25-11-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K J RAO
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 142(1); 144

Judgement Text

1 ITA.NO.1571/H/2013 & ITA.NO.843/H/2015 SHRI P. SRINIVAS GOUD, QUTHUBULLAPUR (M), R.R. DIST RICT. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.1571/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008 SHRI P. SRINIVAS GOUD QUTHUBULLAPUR MANDAL, RR DISTRICT. PANAJLPP3987F VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-11(4), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA.NO.843/HYD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008 SHRI P. SRINIVAS GOUD QUTHUBULLAPUR MANDAL, RR DISTRICT. PANAJLPP3987F VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : -NONE- FOR REVENUE : SHRI K.J. RAO DATE OF HEARING : 01.03.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.03.2017 ORDER PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE AS SESSEE AND THEY PERTAIN TO THE A.Y. 2007-2008. VIDE ORDER DATE D 31.12.2009, THE A.O. MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.55,32,222 BUT BY A SEP ARATE ORDER DATED 28.03.2013 FURTHER ADDITION OF RS.3,37,307 WAS M ADE AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAVING CONFIRMED BOTH THE ADDITIONS, ASSESSEE I S IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 2 ITA.NO.1571/H/2013 & ITA.NO.843/H/2015 SHRI P. SRINIVAS GOUD, QUTHUBULLAPUR (M), R.R. DIST RICT. 2. SHRI S. RAMA RAO AND SHRI D. SATYANARAYANA AND SMT. S. SANDHYA, ADVOCATES HAVE FILED THE PRESENT APPEALS AND IN FACT SOUGHT ADJOURNMENTS FROM TIME TO TIME. THEREAFTER, IT APPEARS TH AT THERE WAS NO CO-OPERATION FROM THE ASSESSEES SIDE. THEREFORE TH EY REQUESTED THE BENCH TO PERMIT THEM TO WITHDRAW THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY. ACCORDINGLY, A FRESH NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH REGISTERE D POST. THOUGH THE APPEALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING THEREAFTER, NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE ON 01.03.2017. WE, THEREFORE, PROCEED TO DIS POSE-OF THE APPEALS EX-PARTE, QUA THE ASSESSEE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. D.R. AND CAREFULLY PERUSE D THE RECORD. WE SHALL FIRST DEAL WITH THE MATTER ARISING OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12.2009. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDU AL DERIVING INCOME FROM BUSINESS, HOUSE PROPERTY AND OTHER SOURCES. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT DECLARED NET INCOME OF RS .2,66,299. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. DURING THE COURSE OF EXAMINATION OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE D EPOSITS AGGREGATING TO RS.55,32,222. THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED- UPON TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS. THOUGH THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FROM TIME TO TIME, NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE. THIS BEING A TIM E BARRING CASE, THE A.O. HAD NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE EXCEPT TO PROCEED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS ARE UNEXPLAI NED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, A SUM OF RS.55,32,222 WAS ADDED. 4. THE CIT(A)-6, HYDERABAD CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. T HE ASSESSEE FILED FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT, HYDERA BAD BENCHES. VIDE ORDER DATED 06.12.2012 THE TRIBUNAL RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO SOURCE OF DEPOSIT. 3 ITA.NO.1571/H/2013 & ITA.NO.843/H/2015 SHRI P. SRINIVAS GOUD, QUTHUBULLAPUR (M), R.R. DIST RICT. 5. THIS MATTER WAS TAKEN-UP AGAIN BY THE CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY. AS COULD B E NOTICED FROM PARA 2.4 OF HIS ORDER, NO INFORMATION/COGENT EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED EVEN AT THAT STAGE AND HENCE, THE ADDITION WAS AGAIN CONFIRMED B Y THE LD. CIT(A) BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 2.4. IN LIGHT OF THE FINDINGS OF THE HON'BLE ITAT , THAT THE APPELLANT DESERVED ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE S OF DEPOSITS INTO BANK ACCOUNTS BY PRODUCING THE PERSONS CONCERNED OR BY FILING ANY OTHER EVIDENCE, TO SUBSTANTIATE TILE CLAIM, PROPER OPPORT UNITY IS GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT BY REQUESTING FOR THE SPECIFIC INFORMATIO N/EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD. THE OPPORTUNITY WAS REVISED BY POSTING/HEAR ING THE APPEAL FIVE TIMES ON 08.04.2013, 06.05.2013, 08.07.2013, 31.07. 2013 AND 19.08.2013. THE AR WAS PRESENT ON 08.04.2013 AND NO TED THE DETAILS OF INFORMATION / EVIDENCE REQUIRED TO BE PRODUCED BY A PPELLANT AND WAS ADJOURNED TO 18.04.2013. SINCE THERE WAS NO RESPONS E ON THE SAID DATE, THE HEARING WAS FURTHER FIXED ON THE ABOVE MENTIONE D DATES, FOR WHICH THERE WAS NO ATTENDANCE OR RESPONSE FROM THE AR AND ULTIMATELY IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO RESPONSE FROM THE APPELL ANT. THIS CAN LEAD TO THE ONLY CONCLUSION THAT THE APPELLANT DO NOT HAVE ANY FURTHER INFORMATION OR EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF EXPLAINING THE SOURCES FOR DEPOSITS INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 55,32,222, BEING THE AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT IN ACCOUNTS OF HDFC BANK, WHICH W ERE TREATED AS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS BY THE A.O AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A)-VI, IN THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2012, AS APPELLANT COULD NOT CORRELATE THE CLAIMED SOURCES WITH THAT OF DEPOSITS IN TO BANK ACCOUNTS. FURTHER, THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF APP ELLATE PROCEEDINGS COULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIATED, AS REQUESTED. UNDER THE CIRCU MSTANCES, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS MADE INTO BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT, MADE DURING THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE, CO NSTITUTE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND UNEXPLAINED INCOME TO THE APPELLANT, LN ABSENCE OF ANY COGENT EVIDENCE OR EXPLANATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE AD DITION OF RS.55,32,222/-, MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY THE A.O, STAND CONFIRMED. IN THIS CONTEXT, IT MAY BE RELEVANT TO R EFER TO THE DECISION OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF M.P. IN THE CASE OF LATE TUGO JIRAO HOLKAR VS. CIT (223 ITR 480) AND DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF M ULTIPLAN (INDIA) LTD. (38 LTD 320) THAT SUPPORT THE ISSUE OF DISMISSAL OF APPEALS ON THE GROUNDS OF NON-COMPLIANCE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPE AL IS TREATED AS DISMISSED. 6. AS THE THINGS STOOD THUS, THE A.O. SOUGHT TO FOLLO W THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER DATED 19.03.201 2 WHEREIN AN AMOUNT 4 ITA.NO.1571/H/2013 & ITA.NO.843/H/2015 SHRI P. SRINIVAS GOUD, QUTHUBULLAPUR (M), R.R. DIST RICT. OF RS.3,37,030 WAS TO BE VERIFIED. VIDE ORDER DATED 28.03.2013 THE A.O. PASSED AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S. 153(2A) AND 250 OF THE I.T. ACT BY MAKING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS IN ORDER TO M AKE A FURTHER ADDITION OF RS.3,37,030. TO VERIFY THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY C REDITORS OF RS.3,37,030, A NOTICE U/S.143(2), 142(1) WITH A LET TER DT.25.09.2012 AND 18.3.2013 REQUESTING THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE PROPER SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN CONNECTION WITH THE CREDITS INTRODUCED DURING THE CURRENT YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. BUT THERE IS N O RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED. SINCE THE CASE IS GETTING BARRED BY LIMITATIONS, THERE IS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE LEFT WITH THE A.O. EXCEPT TO TAKE DECISION ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS FOUND FROM T HE RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY INFORMATION AT THE T IME OF FINALISATION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S.143(3) AND NOT CO-OPERAT ED WITH THE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED EXPARTY U/S.144 OF THE I.T. ACT ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD. EVEN BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ASSESSEE COUL D NOT FURNISH ANY INFORMATION. THEREFORE, THE SAID ADDITION WAS CONFIRME D BY THE CIT(A). 7. FURTHER AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN SHORT, THE ASSESSEE FILED TWO SEPARATE APPEALS CON TESTING THE ADDITION OF RS.55,32,222 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.08.2013 AN D CHALLENGING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,37,030 ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF CI T(A) DATED 13.02.2015. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUS ED THE RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO HEARD THE LD. D.R. AS HAS BEEN STATED EARLIER, DESPITE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES, NONE APPEARED ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO INFORMATION WAS FILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GROUNDS URGED BEFORE US. HAVING REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE HOLD THAT THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ARE IN ACCORDANCE WI TH LAW PARTICULARLY 5 ITA.NO.1571/H/2013 & ITA.NO.843/H/2015 SHRI P. SRINIVAS GOUD, QUTHUBULLAPUR (M), R.R. DIST RICT. IN THE VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED A NY MATERIAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL TO CONTRADICT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD . CIT(A). 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10.03.2017. SD/- SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) (D.MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT HYDERABAD, DATED 10 TH MARCH, 2017 VBP/- COPY TO 1. SHRI P. SRINIVAS GOUD, QUTHUBULLAPUR MANDAL, R.R. DISTRICT. C/O. SHRI S. RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO.102, SHRIYA S ELEGANCE, H.NO.3-6-643, STREET NO.9, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD - 5 00029. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(4), HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(A)-VI, 6A, I.T. TOWERS, A.C. GUARDS, HYDERAB AD - 500004. 4. CIT-V, HYDERABAD 5. D.R. ITAT B BENCH, HYDERABAD 6. GUARD FILE.