Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
168222514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 year(s) 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
04-10-2013
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
A
Assessment Year
2008-2009
Appeal Filed On
28-12-2010
Judgement Text
1 ITA.NO.1682/HYD/2010 K.GOVARDHAN REDDY, HYDERABAD IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.1682/HYD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 K. GOVARDHAN REDDY HYDERABAD PAN ADVPK3442J VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 6 HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR APPELLANT : SHRI Y. RATNAKAR FOR RESPONDENT : SHRI P. SOMASEKHAR REDDY DATE OF HEARING : 03.10.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.10.2013 ORDER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-I, HYDERABAD DATED 11-10-2010 FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A) DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN LIMINE AN D ALSO CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCES OF RS.41,75,000/- AND RS.14,15,000/- AND CONSEQUENTIAL ADDITIONS. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI Y. RATNAKAR, HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF (1) DAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. TH E ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. IN TH E SAID APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE DELAY HAS ARISEN DUE TO ERROR IN CALCULATION OF THE EXPIRY PERIOD AND THEREFORE, IT IS NEITHER WILFUL NOR WANTON. 2 ITA.NO.1682/HYD/2010 K.GOVARDHAN REDDY, HYDERABAD 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE ARE INCLINED TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF (1) DAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. AS REGARDS THE ISSUES ARISING OUT OF THE APPEAL, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS FIXED THE DATES OF HEARING ON 07.09.2010, 17.09.2010 AND 08.1 0.2010 AND DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL ON 11.10.2010. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE, ON EACH DATE OF HEARING, HAD SOUGHT FOR A N ADJOURNMENT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD TO COMPILE THE MA TERIAL TO BE FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A). BUT THE CIT(A), WITHIN A P ERIOD OF ONE MONTH HAS DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL EX-PARTE. THIS, AC CORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IS IN VIOLATION O F PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND HENCE, SHOULD BE REMITTED FOR FR ESH CONSIDERATION. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE IS IN POSSESSION OF THE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE CLAIMS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONSEQUENTIAL ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE. THE LEA RNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE EVIDEN CE IS IN THE FORM OF AFFIDAVITS OF PERSONS WHO HAVE ADVANCED THE FUNDS TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO RECIPIENT OF THE PAYMENTS AND THE RELEVANT MATERIAL COULD NOT BE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OF FICER AS THESE PERSONS WERE OUT OF STATION AND NOT AVAILABLE DURIN G THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE AFFIDAVITS AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE US AND SOUGHT FOR ADMISS ION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 29 OF THE I.T.A.T. R ULES. 6. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVING CONSIDE RED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE ON T HE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIMS WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DETAILS B EFORE US AND THESE DETAILS NEED VERIFICATION BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. FURTHER, AS SEEN FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), SUFFICIENT OP PORTUNITY HAS 3 ITA.NO.1682/HYD/2010 K.GOVARDHAN REDDY, HYDERABAD NOT BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE CIT(A). IN V IEW OF THE SAME, WE DEEM IT FAIR AND PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A) AND REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER FOR DENOVO CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL A LSO CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND RE-CONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH, AFTER GIVING A RE ASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.10.2013 SD/- SD/- - (B.RAMAKOTAIAH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER - (P.MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 04 TH OCTOBER, 2013 VBP/- COPY TO 1. SHRI K.GOVARDHAN REDDY, HYDERABAD C/O. VENUGOPAL & CHENOY, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, DOOR NO. 4-1-889/16/2 , TILAK ROAD, HYDERABAD 1. 2. DCIT, C.C.6 NALGONDA. 3. CIT(A) - I , H YDERABAD. 4. CIT , (CENTRAL) , HYDERABAD 5. DR A BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD
Mehul