Pothula Venkata Reddy , Nalgonda V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Suryapet

ITA 1699/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7248 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-01-2020
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 14-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P SUNIL KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: Y BHANU NARAYAN RAO
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 13; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B - SMC, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1699 /HYD/20 18 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 13 - 14 POTHULA VENKATA REDDY, PROP. M/S. SWAGATH WINES, H.NO.3 - 247/5/4/2/A, MLA STREET, SRINAGAR COLONY, KODAD 508206. PAN: ADFPP 3160 L VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, SURYAPET. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI Y. BHANU NARAYAN RAO REVENUE BY: SRI P. SUNIL KUMAR, DR DATE OF HEARING: 20/01/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30 /01/2020 ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 3, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO.0103/ITO - 1/SYT/CIT(A) - 2/2016 - 17, DATED 17/05/2018 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2013 - 14. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING G ROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF APPEAL PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS AND BAD IN LAW. 2. ON THE FACTS AN D IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR THE REASON OF NON - APPEARANCE OF THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE. 2 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY UPHOLDING THE ARBITRARY ADDITION OF RS. 10,01,250/ - MADE U/S. 69 OF THE ACT BY THE LD.AO. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE INCOME ADMITTED / RETURNED F RS. 10,76,400 BY THE APPELLANT / ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2013 - 14. 3 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS EN GAGED IN LIQUOR BUSINESS FU NCTIONING IN THE NAME OF M/S. SWAGATH WINES , E - FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2013 - 14 ON 29.03.2014 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 10,76,400/ - . THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS. DURING THE SCRUTINY ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS , ON QUERY WITH REGARD TO THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 10,01,250/ - IN THE ASSESSEES SBH BANK ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. AO THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 10,01,250/ - IS PAID AGAINST THE LOAN OBTAINED FROM MR. B. VENKATA NARAYANA BUT , T HE LD. AO REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COGENT EVIDENCE AND THE MADE THE ADDITION U/S. 69 OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT (A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL EX - PARTE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) , THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US TH AT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE NOW HAS ALL THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS ARGUMENT S . IT WAS FURTHER PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY 3 BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF TH E LD. AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AS FR ESH EVIDENCE HAS TO BE FILED . LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND ARGUED THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER, ON THE GIVEN DATES OF HEARING, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO PASS EX - PARTE ORDER ON MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HENCE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. ON EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I DO NOT FIND MUCH STRENGTH IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVAN CED BY THE LD. AR. EVEN BEFORE US, AT THIS STAGE, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ITS REPRESENTATIVE HAS FILED ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE UNSECURED LOANS. HOWEVER, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. AO FOR DE - NOVO CONSIDERATION THEREBY PROVIDING THE ASSESSEE WITH ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. HOWEVER, AT THE SAME BREATH I HEREBY CAUTION THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTLY CO - OPERATE BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THEIR PROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH THE LD. REVENUE 4 AUTHORITIES SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERIT BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. 6 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH JANUARY, 2020. SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 30 TH JANUARY, 2020. OKK COPY TO: - 1) POTHULA VENKATA REDDY, PROP. M/S. SWAGATH WINES, C/O. Y.V. BHANU NARAYAN RAO, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, 10 - 2 - 195, OPP. DECAN CLUB, EAST MAREDPALLY, SECUNDERABAD 500 026. 2) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, SURYAPET. 3) THE CIT(A) - 3, HYDERABAD 4) THE PR. CIT - 3, HYDERABAD 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE