Dhaani Builders, Hyderabad V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax , Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1607/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4927 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 04-11-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SELGY JOSE T KOTTARAM
• Assessee Lawyers: P MURALI MOHANA RAO
• Keywords: Application of stay; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 40(a)(ia); 133(6)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1607/HYD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 & S.A. NO. 4/HYD/2020 (A.Y.:2013 - 14) M/S. DHAANI BUILDERS, HYDERABAD. PAN: AAHFD 3265 D VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 8(1), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI P. MURALI MOHANA RAO REVENUE BY: SRI SELGY JOSE T. KOTTARAM, DR DATE OF HEARING: 28/01/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21 /02/2020 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 2, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO. 10165/2016 - 17/CIT(A) - 2, DATED 17/09/2019 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2013 - 14. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED STAY APPLICATION SEE KING STAY FROM RECOVERY OF OUTSTANDING DEMAND OF RS. 62,45,616/ - FOR THE A.Y. 2013 - 14. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL: 2 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ARE APPLICABLE FOR THE AMOUNTS PAID TOWARDS COMMISSION OF RS. 72,450/ - AND CONSULTANCY CHARGES OF RS. 4 LAKHS. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN DISALLOWING DEPRECIAT ION ON VEHICLES OF RS. 2,10,.623/ - AND EXPENDITURE ON VEHICLE MAINTENANCE OF RS. 1,08,525/ - IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE SAID VEHICLES ARE OWNED BY THE FIRM AND THEY ARE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRM ING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN HOLDING THAT THE UNSECURED LOANS WERE NOT PROPERLY EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE ENTIRE UNSECURED LOANS OF RS. 1,34,39,000/ - CAN BE ADDED MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT SUNDRY CREDITORS DID NOT RESPOND TO THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING LEVY OF INTEREST U/S. 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. 6. ANY OTHER GROUND OR GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3 . AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. A.O. MADE ADDITION OF RS. 1,34,39,000/ - TOWARDS UNSECURED LOAN FOR WANT OF CONFIRMATION LETTERS AND BANK STATEMENTS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME . T HE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO FURNISH THE REQUISITE EVIDENCE CALLED FOR BY THE REVENUE. LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, VEH EMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND ARGUED THAT SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER, ON THE GIVEN DATES OF 3 HEARING, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). IT WAS FURTHER SU BMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO PASS EX - PARTE ORDER BASED ON THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HENCE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISM ISSED. 4 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. ON EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR. IT IS APPARENT FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT T HE LD. CIT (A) HAD POSTED THE CASE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON THE DATES OF HEARING. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT (A) WAS COMPELLED TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL EX - PARTE. IN THIS SITUATION, WE DO NOT FIND MUCH STRENGTH IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE PRAYER OF THE LD. AR TO REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. A.O , IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY REMIT TH E MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. A.O. FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION THEREBY PROVIDING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. AT THE SAME BREATH, WE ALSO HEREBY CAUTION THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTLY CO - OPERATE BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THE I R PROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES SHALL BE AT 4 LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER S IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON THE RECORD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 5 . SINCE WE HAVE REMITTED BACK THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LD. AO FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION, THE STAY APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT SURVIVE. ACCORDINGLY, THE STAY PETITION IS DISMISSED. 6 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE AND THE STAY APPLICATION F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST FEBRUARY, 2020. SD/ - SD/ - (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 21 ST FEBRUARY, 2020 OKK COPY TO: - 1) M/S. DHAANI BUILDERS, 301A, H.NO.2 - 4 - 64/D/A, BHAANI MHAL UPPARAPALLY, RAJENDERANAGAR, RANGA REDDY - 500030. 2) THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), SIGNATURE TOWERS, KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD. 3) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 2, HYDERABAD. 4) THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE