Lakshmi Sulochana Kumaparaju , Secunderabad V. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, ward-15(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1591/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4209 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-03-2019
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 24-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJEEV BENJWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: B V PRASAD
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 234B; 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE V. DURGA RAO , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1591/H YD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014 - 15 LAKSHMI SULOCHANA KUNAPARAJU SECUNDERABAD. PAN: DHZPS 9759 D VS. ACIT, WARD - 15(1), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI B.V. PRASAD REVENUE BY: SRI RAJEEV BENJWAL, DR DATE OF HEARING: 06/03/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13 /03/2019 ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) - 7, HYDERABAD DATED 24/04/2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AGAINST LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE AND PROBABILITIES OF THE CASE. 2. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW AND THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE A.O. WITHOUT CONSIDERING OUR INFORMAT ION AND EXPLANATION PROVIDED DURING THE HEARING. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SALE PROCEEDS OF THE FARMING TREATED AS INCOME WITHOUT DEDUCTING COSTS INCURRED AND NON - 2 CONSIDERING OF RECEIPT OF PART PAYMENT OF RS. 4 LAKHS AGAINST SALE OF AGRICULTU RE LAND. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ROI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15 AND CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF TRUE INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING AND PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND HENCE PENALTY PROVISIONS ARE ATTRACTED. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234A TO A TUNE OF RS. 30,282/ - . 6. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE INTEREST U/S 234B TO A TUNE OF RS. 36,771/ - . 2. AT THE OUTSET, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 28 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT. BRINGING OUR ATTENTION TO THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 24/07/2018 FILED BY THE AS SESSEE WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE REASON FOR DELAY STATING THAT DUE TO SEVERE ILL HEALTH OF JAUNDICE WITH WOMANS GYNAEC PROBLEM, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT COME OUT OF THE HOUSE AND THEREFORE, THE DELAY OCCURRED. ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSEES AFFI DAVIT AND THE REASONS STATED THEREIN, WE FIND THERE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE AND SUFFICIENT REASON FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE REASONABLE CAUSE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY OF 28 DAYS AND PROC EED TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 3 . THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 9 LAKHS. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF FISHY CULTURE AND DEVELOPING OF FISH TANKS. DURING THE YEAR, ASSESSEE MADE TIME DEPOSITS AGGREGATING TO RS. 17,49,221/ - AND 3 CASH DEPOSITS AGGREGATING TO RS. 52,05,000/ - HER BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2014 - 15. THEREFORE, THE A.O. REOPENED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE U/ S 147 OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT ON 15/12/2017 BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 9 LAKHS BY OBSERVING THAT SINCE THE INCOME FROM CULTIVATING FISH AND OTHER ALLIED FOOD FARMING FROM FISH TANKS NOT COVERED UNDER THE D EFINITION OF SECTION 2(1A) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 . AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE AS THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FISHY CULTURE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED. CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE SAID CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEA L BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THE ABOVE MENTIONED GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 5 . LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION BY TREATING THE ENTIRE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED A SUM OF RS. 5 LAKHS AS EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING THE SAID AMOUNT AND THEREFORE, TO THAT EXTENT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM MAY BE CONSID ERED. 4 6 . ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF FISHY CULTURE AND HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2014 - 15 AND THEREFORE, THE A.O. HAS ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE AC T AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IN RESPONSE TO THE A.OS QUERY REGARDING CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 9 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME WAS RECEIVED IN CONNECTION WITH THE BUSINESS, BUT COULD NOT FURNISH THE DETAILS BEFORE THE A. O. HAVING NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION IN THE ABSENCE OF SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM, A.O. ADDED THE ENTIRE INCOME RECEIVED BY T HE ASSESSEE AND THE DECISION OF THE A.O. WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). WE FIND FROM THE ABOVE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE, BEING ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF FISHY CULTURE, HAS TO INCUR SOME EXPENDITURE TOWARDS SEEDS, FISH FEEDING, LABOUR, POWER, COS T OF HARVEST AND TRANSPORT ETC., WHICH IN THIS CASE IS RS. 5 LAKHS AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION, RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO RS. 4 LAKHS WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND THE A.O. IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. THUS, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 5 8 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 13 TH MARCH, 2019. SD/ - SD/ - (S. RIFA UR RAHMAN) (V. DURGA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 13 TH MARCH , 2019 OKK COPY TO: - 1) C/O. B.V. PRASAD, 8 - 3 - 903/8A, NAGARJUNA NAGAR, YELLAREDDYGUDA, AMEERPET, HYDERABAD - 500073. 2) ACIT, WARD 15(1), HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT(A) - 7 , HYDERABAD 4) THE PR. CIT - 7 , HYDERABAD 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE