Dr P Chandramma, Hyderabad V. ITO., Ward-13(1), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 1671/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6310 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 30-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 03-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A SITARAMA RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 148

Judgement Text

ITA NO 1671 OF 2014 DR P CHANDRAMMA HYDERABAD PAGE 1 OF 5 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P.MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1671/HYD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1997-98) DR.P.CHANDRAMMA , L/R OF LATE S. PRASANGI RAO GHATKESAR, RR DISTT. PAN: AJQPP 4075 M VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 13(1) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI S. RAMA RAO FOR REVENUE : SHRI A. SITARAMA RAO, DR DATE OF HEA R ING : 02.08.2016 DAT E OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 .08.2016 O R D E R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y 1997-98. IN T HIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEES GRIEVANCE IS AGAINST THE CON FIRMATION OF ADDITIONS OF (I) RS.42,500 AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMEN T; AND (II) RS.6,06,500 AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED A GROUND OF APPEAL AGAINST LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS LATE SHRI S. PRASANGI RAO WHO WAS A CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR I N THE GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH. SHRI S. PRASANGI RAO FILED HIS RETU RN OF INCOME ON 30.10.1998 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,26,650 . THE INCOME COMPRISED OF SALARY AND OTHER SOURCES. THE R ETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1)(A) OF THE ACT ON 31.03.1999. C ONSEQUENT TO ITA NO 1671 OF 2014 DR P CHANDRAMMA HYDERABAD PAGE 2 OF 5 THE RECEIPT OF INFORMATION FROM ACB TO THE EFFECT T HAT THEY HAVE SEIZED LARGE QUANTITY OF CASH ETC. FROM THE ASSESSE E, THE AO ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE AO TO TREAT THE RETURN O RIGINALLY FILED AS COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148. THEREAFTER, TH E AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 28.03.2002 ASSESSING T HE ASSESSEES INCOME AT RS.26,71,630. AGAINST THE SAME , SHRI S. PRASANGI RAO (ASSESSEE) FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) AND DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, HE PASSED AWAY. H IS WIFE, SMT. P. CHANDRAMMA IS THE LEGAL HEIR WHO REPRESENTED THE CASE BEFORE THE CIT (A) AND ALSO IS REPRESENTING BEFORE US. THE CIT (A) CONFIRMED ALL THE ADDITIONS EXCEPT THE ADDITION OF RS.10,500 IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT IN NSCS. ON FURTHER APPEAL TO THE ITAT, THE MATTER WAS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RECONSIDERATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE DIRECTIONS OF ITAT. DURING THE CONSEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 OF THE ACT, THE AO MADE CERTAIN ADDITIONS AND ASSESSED THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME AT RS.24,49,975. AGAINST THE SAME, ASSESSEE FILED AN A PPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) WHO GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSES SEE. AGAINST THE ADDITIONS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (A), ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. AS FAR AS ADDITION OF RS.42,500 IS CONCERNED, TH E LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (A) HAS RECORDED THAT THE AO HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION FROM THE ACB AUTHORITIES THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS MADE AN INVESTMENT OF RS.42,500 TOWARDS THE COST OF THE PLOT PURCHASED UNDER REGISTERED DOCUMENT NO.2146 OF 1996 DATED 22.08.1996. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED THAT THERE IS NO SUCH DOCUMENT AS THE SALE DEED NO.2146 OF 1996 BUT ITA NO 1671 OF 2014 DR P CHANDRAMMA HYDERABAD PAGE 3 OF 5 THERE IS A DOCUMENT NO.1742 OF 1995 EXECUTED ON 14. 12.1995 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEES DAUGHTER. BUT THE CIT (A) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED COPIES OF ANY OF THE DOC UMENTS BEFORE HIM. THEREFORE, HE CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANC E. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ACB AUTHORITIES HAD SEARCHED THE ASSESSEE ON 14.05.1996, WHERE AS THE DOCUMENT MENTIONED BY T HE AUTHORITIES IS DATED 22.08.1996 I.E. AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH. THEREFORE, HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS DOCUMENT COULD NO T HAVE BEEN FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT CANN OT BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED DR , HOWEVER, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ALLEGED DOCUMENT ON THE BA SIS OF WHICH THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IS STATED TO BE DATED 22 .08.1996 AND AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE, THE SEARCH HAD BEEN CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 14.5.1996 AS RECORDED BY THE AO AT PARA 2.1 OF HIS ORDER. THEREFORE, WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT THIS DOCUMENT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOUND IN THE POSSESSIO N OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHOULD NOT BE RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE AT ALL. THEREFORE, WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT RELATE TO THE ASSESSEE AND COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED AND THE ADDITION IS D ELETED. 6. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF RS.6,60,500 IS CONCER NED, DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE ACB AUTHORITIES FOUND IN THE ITA NO 1671 OF 2014 DR P CHANDRAMMA HYDERABAD PAGE 4 OF 5 POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE CASH TO THE EXTENT OF RS .20,18,580 WHICH CONSIST OF RS.6,60,500 FOUND IN A BROWN SUIT CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED THAT THIS REPRESENTS PART OF TH E ADVANCE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS PARTIES TOWARDS SALE C ONSIDERATION OF VARIOUS PROPERTIES IN RESPECT OF HIS LAND AT BHE EMUNIPATNAM, A HOUSE AT GHATKESAR ETC., A STATEMENT SHOWING THE PROPERTIES PROPOSED TO BE SOLD, THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE RECEIVED ALONG WITH THE RECEIPTS FOR THE RECEIPT OF ADVANCES WERE SUBMI TTED FOR PERUSAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). THE CIT (A) OBSERVED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE COPIES OF THE AGREEMENT WHICH WER E NOT SIGNED BY THE PARTIES CONCERNED. THEREFORE, HE DID NOT AC CEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITI ON MADE BY THE AO. 7. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE, HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PAGES 32 AND 33 OF THE PAPER BOOK TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF A PROPERTY FOR A SUM OF RS.8.00 LAKHS AND THAT SUM OF RS.5.00 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED BY VIRTUE OF THE SAID DOCUMENT AND BALANCE OF RS.3.00 LAKHS WAS YET TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE SU BMITED THAT THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT THE DOCUMENT AT PAGES 32 AND 33 IS IN TELUGU LANGUAGE BUT THE TR ANSLATED COPY IS NOT FILED. THEREFORE, THE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER WHO DOES NOT KNOW THE LANGUAGE, IS NOT ABLE TO GO INTO THE SAME. WE ALSO FIND THAT THIS PROPERTY IS MENTIONED IN THE ABSTRACT PLA CED AT PAGE 67 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE US. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMAND THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF T HE AO FOR VERIFICATION OF THE GENINENESS OF THIS DOCUMENT AS IT IS ALLEGEDLY A ITA NO 1671 OF 2014 DR P CHANDRAMMA HYDERABAD PAGE 5 OF 5 DOCUMENT FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND THE COPY PRODUCED BEFORE US IS THE XEROX COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE AC B COURT. IF IT IS FOUND TO BE A GENUINE DOCUMENT, THEN THE AO SHALL D ELETE THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5.00 LAKHS AS EXPL AINED SOURCE. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS TREAT ED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. THE LAST GROUND AGAINST LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234 A, 234B AND 234C BEING CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE, WE REMAND T HE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO GIVE CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF, IF ANY. 9. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH AUGUST, 2016. S D/ - S D/ - ( S.RIFAUR RAHMAN ) ( P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 26 TH AUGUST, 2016. VNODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1. SHRI S. RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO.102, SHRIYAS E LEGANCE, 3-6-643, STREET NO.9, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD 50002 9 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 13(1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BASHEERBAGH HYDERABAD 500029 3. CIT(A) V HYDERABAD 4. CIT I HYDERABAD 5. THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER