ACIT, Hyderabad V. Shri S.V.N. Ravi Kumar, Hyderabad

ITA 1669/HYD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 166922514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 24-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D D GOYAL
• Assessee Lawyers: GVVS MURTHY
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Gift; Depreciation
• Section: 68; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AN D SHRI AKBER BASHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1669/HYD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ACIT, CIR - 10(1), HYDERABAD. VS SRI SVN RAVI KUMAR, SECUNDERABAD. (PAN:AFBPS 6911E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI D.D. GOYAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GVVS MURTHY DATE OF HEARING: 23-9-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13 -10-2011. O R D E R PER AKBER BASHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (A)-VI, HYDERABAD, DATED 30 -09-2010 AND IT PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEA L READ AS UNDER:- 1. THE CIT (A) ERRED IN BOTH LAW AND FACTS. 2. THE CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDIT IONS MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. ITA 1669/HYD/2010- SVN RAVI KUMAR, SECUNDERABAD. ============================== L.L 2 3. THE CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CORRECTLY MADE THE ADDITION I N RESPECT OF GIFT GIVEN TO HIM BY HIS WIFE AS THE GIFT WAS NO T SHOWN IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME, NO GIFT DEED OR AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO PROOF OF RECEIPT OF GIFT AS THE GIFT WAS SAID TO BE GIVEN IN CASH, HIS WIFE WHO HAS GIVE N THE GIFT HAS NOT BUSINESS OR PROFESSIONAL INCOME. THE RECEI PT OF GIFT WAS INFORMED ONLY WHEN IT WAS ASKED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WHILE EXAMINING THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASS ESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 4. THE CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CORRECTLY NOT ACCEPTED THE AS SESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE DEPOSIT OF RS.25,00,000 IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT IS OUT OF THE EARLIER WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK AS THERE WERE NO SUFFICIENT WITHDRAWALS IN HIS BANK AC COUNT. 5. THE CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CORRE3CTLY ASSESSED THE ENTIR E GROSS RECEIPTS MENTIONED IN THE TDS CERTIFICATE. 6. THE CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. 7. THE CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CORRECTLY MADE ADDITION IN RE SPECT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE CHEQUE NUMBER MENTIONED IN THE DOCUMENT HAS NOT EN-CASHED AS PER THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. THE CIT (A) IS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS M ADE TOWARDS UN-VOUCHED EXPENDITURE AND DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIA TION ON ITA 1669/HYD/2010- SVN RAVI KUMAR, SECUNDERABAD. ============================== L.L 3 CAR AS THE ABOVE ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE ABSENCE O F VOUCHERS/BILLS ETC., AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED FOR THE ABOVE ADDITION IN WRITING DURING THE COURSE OF ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 9. ANY OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF UNDERTAKING TURNKEY ARCH ITECTURAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY SERVICES. AFTER CONDUCTING NECESSARY EXAMINATION, VERIFICATION AND CONSIDERING THE MATER IAL ON RECORD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ASSESSMENT UNDER DIFFERE NT HEADS AND DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME AS RS.2,52,62,050/- GIV EN AS UNDER:- 1. LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS RS.1,45,47,061 2. ADDITION AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE I T ACT RS. 55,00,000 3. ADDITION AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT RS. 25,00,000 4. ADDITION AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME U/S 68 OF THE I T ACT RS. 2,86,478 5. UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE ACT RS. 7,80,190 6. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE FOR NON-PRODUCTION OF BILLS AND VOUCHERS FOR VERIFICATION RS.12,43,844 7. ADDITION ON CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION RS. 18,288/- ITA 1669/HYD/2010- SVN RAVI KUMAR, SECUNDERABAD. ============================== L.L 4 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER , THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). ON APPEAL, THE C IT (A) DELETED ALL THE ABOVE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND A LLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE FINDINGS AND THE OR DER OF THE CIT (A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. AT THE OUTSET, WE FIND THAT THE CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER PURSUING THE AD DITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE CIT (A) IN THE FORM OF BANK STATEMENTS, BILL FROM DIRECTOR, CENTRE FOR ECO NOMIC AND SOCIAL STUDIES, ETC., WHICH IS CLEAR VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE FEEL IT PROPER AND JUST TO REMIT BACK THE ISSUES WHICH ARE RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT, IN ITS GROUND OF APPEAL, TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTIONS 68 AND 69 OF THE A CT AND THE ADDITION MADE TOWARDS UN-VOUCHED EXPENDITURE AND DISALLOWANC E AND DEPRECIATION ON CAR ARE ONLY SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 13 -10- 2011. SD/ SD/- SMT. ASHA VIJAYA R AGHAVAN (AKBER BASHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER . ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. DT/- 13 -10-2011. ITA 1669/HYD/2010- SVN RAVI KUMAR, SECUNDERABAD. ============================== L.L 5 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. ACIT, CIR - 10(1), ROOM NO.515, AC GUARDS, IT TOWERS, HYDERABAD. 2. SVN RAVI KUMAR, 1 - 7 - 31`7 & 318, ADJ. TO PANCHASHEELA TOWERS, PARKLANE, SECUNDERABAD. 3. CIT(A) - VI , HYDERABAD. 4. CIT, AP, HYDERABAD. 5. THE D.R., ITAT, HYDERABAD. JMR*