The Income-tax Officer, Ward-10(2), Hyderabad V. Sri. Anjaneya Sharma, Secunderabad

ITA 1680/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2871 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y V S T SAI
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.51/HYD/2012 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, PRODDATUR V/S SMT. VASUNDHARA ERAGAMREDDY, PRODDATUR (PAN AENPV 8230 Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) A PPELLANT BY : SHRI Y.V.S.T.SAI DR R ESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.RAMA RAO DATE OF HEARING 06.06.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06.06.2013 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS), GUNTUR DAT ED 2.5.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THI S APPEAL- 1. THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONE OUS BOTH IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DISMISSED THE ASSES SEES APPEAL ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE CASE WAS SELECTED FO R SCRUTINY BASED UPON THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE CB DT ACCORDING TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN TRADE CRE DITORS OF MORE THAN RS. 30 LAKHS. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) OUT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT T HAT THOUGH REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE , SHE ITA NO.51/HYD/ 12 SMT. VASUNDHARA ERAGAMREDDY, PRODDATUR. 2 FAILED TO PRODUCE THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSE E WITH THE ALLEGED TRADE CREDITORS. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT PRODUCE THE LE DGER EXTRACTS DUE TO BAD TERMS WITH THE SUPPLIERS. HOWEV ER, THE SUNDRY CREDITORS WAS STATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO HA VE CONFIRMED THE CREDITS DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLAT E PROCEEDINGS. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER PARA 4.3 PAGE 4 AND 5,S STATED THAT THE APPELLANT FIELD A LETTER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREIN THE ADDRESSES OF THE CRED ITORS WAS MENTIONED AND THEREAFTER EXPLAINED THE CREDITOR S. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE NOT ALLOWED SUCH SUBMISSIO N WHICH MERELY SHOWS THE ADDRESSES OF THE CREDITORS B UT REMAINED UNPROVED. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE FAILED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE A.O. AS PER SUB SECTION 4 OF SECTION 250. 7 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF RETAIL TRADE OF ELECTRICAL MOTORS, FILE D RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, ON 29.9.2008 ADMITTING TOT AL INCOME OF RS.1,62,000. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT, THE A SSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR DETAILS OF TRADE CREDITORS AMOUNTING TO RS.34,96,112. AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF THE CONCERNED TRADE CREDITORS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDING THAT THE S AID AMOUNTS REPRESENT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, MADE ADDITION OF RS.34, 96,113 AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3 6,58,113. 3. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE D ETAILED SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF VARIOU S DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM, DELETED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.33,97,332 OUT OF RS.34,96,113, AND CON FIRMING THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.98,781. ITA NO.51/HYD/ 12 SMT. VASUNDHARA ERAGAMREDDY, PRODDATUR. 3 4. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMIT TED BEFORE US IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY INFORMATI ON BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT COOPERAT IVE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT IS BASED ON CERTAIN DO CUMENTS AND EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE, IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO OFFER HIS COMMENTS ON SUCH EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. 5. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ON THE O THER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ALL THE RE LEVANT RECORDS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO T CAUSED NECESSARY ENQUIRIES, FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE CANNOT FOUND FAUL T WITH, WHEN THE CIT(A) CONSIDERED SUCH EVIDENCE AND GRANTED APPROPR IATE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND OTHER MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND SOME FORCE IN THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT COOPERATIVE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AND HAS NOT PROPERLY CO MPLIED WITH THE REQUISITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND ON A CA REFUL PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE CIT(A) HAS C ONSIDERED VARIOUS DOCUMENTS AND EXPLANATIONS THEREON BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WERE NOT FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BEFORE GIVI NG RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A), BEFORE CONSIDERING THE SAME, IN ALL FAIRNESS, SHOULD HAVE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE SAME AND OFFER HIS COMMENTS THEREON. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-EXAMINE T HE ISSUE AFRESH IN ITA NO.51/HYD/ 12 SMT. VASUNDHARA ERAGAMREDDY, PRODDATUR. 4 ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FU RNISH ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, AND THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE SAME, AND REDEC IDE THE ISSUE ACCORDINGLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER, AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 7 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 06.06.2013 SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT/- 06 TH JUNE, 2013 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. SMT. VASUNDHARA ERAGAMREDDY, (PRODDATUR) , PROP. M/S. VASUNDHARA AGENCIES, D.NO.15-0263, MYDUKUR ROAD, PRODDATUR. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, HYDERABAD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) , GUNTUR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, GUNTUR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ITAT, HYDERABAD B.V.S. SD/ - (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER.