Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2022] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7501 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
14-06-2021
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
DismissedPartlyAllowed
Bench Allotted
DB-A
Next Hearing Date
24-11-2022
Assessment Year
misc
Appeal Filed On
05-02-2025
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “SMC”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1622, 1623 & 1624/Hyd/2019 Assessment Years:2015-16, 2016-17 & 20117-18 Pottiakula Hemakumar Reddy, C/o. P. Prasad Reddy, S/o. P. Jayaram Reddy, D.No. 24-161, Kalavagadd Street, Nagapalyam, Punganur- 517247, Chittor. PAN: AMKPP 6285 C Vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), K.T. Road, Tirupathi, 517501. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: None Revenue by: Shri A. Venkata Rao Date of hearing: 15/03/2021 Date of pronouncement: 15/06/2021 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: These three appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of the Ld. CIT (A), Tirupati in appeal No. 10100, 10101 and 10107/2018- 19/CIT(A)/TPT, dated 4/9/2019 pased U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153C and U/s. 250(6) of the Act for the AYs 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 respectively. 2 2. The assessee has raised two identical grounds for the AY: 2015- 16 and 2016-17 in ITA No. 1622 and 1623/Hyd/2019 respectively and they are as follows: (i) The Ld. CIT (A) has erroneously estimated the profit on sale of liquor @ 5% of the turnover as against 3% adopted by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. (ii) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in sustaining the addition made by the Ld. AO by treating 50% of the agricultural income declared by the assessee as non-agricultural income. 3. For the AY 2017-18 in ITA No. 1624/Hyd/2019 the assessee has raised three more grounds in addition to the first ground raised by the assessee for the AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 and they are as follows: (i) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in sustaining the addition made by the Ld. AO who had estimated the interest income earned by the assessee from sundry creditors at Rs. 2,33,100/-. (ii) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in sustaining the addition made by the Ld. AO who had treated the aggregate amount of Rs. 19,64,300/- mentioned in the 44 promissory notes found during the course of search in the assessee’s premises as his undisclosed income. 3 (iii) The ld. CIT (A) has erred in sustaining the addition made by the Ld. AO who had treated the sundry creditors amounting to Rs. 7,44,000/- as undisclosed income of the assessee because the assessee failed to produce confirmation statements from the sundry creditors. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of sale of liquor and also earning agricultural income. A search operation U/s. 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of Shri Pottiakula Muniratnam Reddy and others on 15/12/2016. During the course of the search statements were recorded from the assessee also and subsequently notice was issued to the assessee U/s. 153A r.w.s 153C of the Act and thereafter assessment was completed in the case of the assessee U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153C of the Act on 14/12/2018 wherein the Ld. AO made various additions after elaborate finding which were recorded in his order. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT (A) also after elaborate consideration partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The assessee has now come on appeal before the Tribunal raising the aforestated grounds. 5. At the time of hearing None appeared before us on behalf of the assessee. The assessee has also not filed any written submissions or furnished evidence to justify his stand. In this situation, I am of the view 4 that the assessee is not interested to pursue his appeals. Further from the order sheet, it is apparent that the appeals were posted for hearing on several occasions. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee on the earlier occasions. Moreover, the appeals are also time barred by one day and the assessee has not filed delay condonation petition. For the above stated reasons, I hereby hold that the appeals of the assessee are devoid of merits and accordingly disposed off. 6. Before parting, it is worthwhile to mention that this order is pronounced after 90 days of hearing the appeal, which is though against the usual norms, we find it appropriate, taking into consideration of the extra-ordinary situation in the light of the lock-down due to Covid-19 pandemic. While doing so, we have relied in the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. JSW Ltd. In ITA No.6264/M/2018 and 6103/M/2018 for AY 2013-14 order dated 14th May 2020. 7. In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on 15 th June, 2021. Sd/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 15 th June, 2021. 5 OKK Copy to:- 1) Pottiakula Hemakumar Reddy, C/o. P. Prasad Reddy, S/o. P. Jayaram Reddy, D.No. 24-161, Kalavagadd Street, Nagapalyam, Punganur-517247, Chittor. 2) The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), K.T. Road, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 3) The CIT (A), Tirupati. 4) The Pr. CIT, Tirupati. 5) The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 6) Guard File
AI Insights
The case involves three appeals filed by the assessee, Pottiakula Hemakumar Reddy, against the orders of the CIT (A), Tirupati, for the assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18. The appeals were related to various additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) following a search operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act. The main issues in the appeals included the estimation of profit on liquor sales, treatment of agricultural income, and additions related to undisclosed income and interest income from sundry creditors. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals due to the non-appearance of the assessee and the late filing of the appeals.
