Raman Boddula, Hyderabad, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 1713/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2519 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K J RAO
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B (SMC), HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1713/HYD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 RAMAN BODDULA, HYDERABAD. PAN AIEPB 7649G VS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : NONE FOR REVENUE : SHRI K.J. RAO DATE OF HEARING : 08-05-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12-05-2017 O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, HYDERABAD, DATED 16-09-2016 FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10. 2. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FIND THAT THERE WAS A D ELAY OF 1 DAY IN FILING THIS APPEAL. IN THIS CONNECTION, TH E ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT FOR CONDONATION WHEREIN IT WAS S TATED THAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE IN CALCULATING THE 60 DAYS FROM THE DAY OF SERVICE AND THE FACT THAT OCTOBER HAD 31 DAYS WA S OVERLOOKED INADVERTENTLY. AS THE REASON GIVEN BY TH E ASSESSEE IS GENUINE, I CONDONE THE SAID DELAY AND A DMIT THE APPEAL FOR ADJUDICATION. I.T.A. NO. 1713/HYD/2016 DR. RAMAN BODDULA, HYD. :- 2 -: 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS A MEDICAL DOCTOR BY PROFESSION AND DERIVES INCOME FRO M PROFESSION AND OTHER SOURCES, FILED HIS RETURN OF I NCOME FOR THE AY 2009-10 ON 09/09/2009 BY DECLARING TOTAL INC OME OF RS. 13,55,288/-. CONSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS REOPENE D AS THERE WAS DIFFERENCE IN INCOME AS PER 26AS, AND NOT ICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 14 3(3) R.W.S. 147 ON 29/01/2016 BY DETERMINING TOTAL INCOM E AT RS. 43,83,347/-. 3.1 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THERE IS A DIFFEREN CE IN GROSS RECEIPTS ADMITTED AS PER RETURN AND AS PER 26AS STA TEMENT. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE HAS RECEIVED ONLY RS.5, 88,720/- FROM M/S. WORKHARDT HOSPITALS LTD AND THE TDS THERE ON WAS RS.63,275/- AND NOT RS.35,44,878/- AS REPORTED IN 26AS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED FORM 16A ISSUED BY M/S . WORKHARDT HOSPITALS LTD IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM. AS SESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY OTHER EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM AND ALSO COULD NOT GET THE 26AS STATEMENT REC TIFIED. THEREFORE, THE RECEIPTS FROM M/S. WORKHARDT HOSPITA LS LTD WAS ADOPTED AS RS.35,44,879/- WHICH WAS REPORTED IN 26AS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE BALANCE TO THE TOTA L INCOME RS.29,56,159/- (35,44,879 - 5,88,720). 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, THE ASSESSEE PREFE RRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CER TIFICATION OF M/S. WORKHARDT HOSPITALS REGARDING THIS MISTAKE. THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN FORM 26AS AND FORM 16A WAS REFE RRED. I.T.A. NO. 1713/HYD/2016 DR. RAMAN BODDULA, HYD. :- 3 -: A COPY OF RECONCILIATION WAS ALSO SUBMITTED. AN AFF IDAVIT BY THE APPLICANT WAS FILED SAYING THAT THE LETTER FROM WORKHARDT COULD NOT BE OBTAINED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AS THE COMPANY HAS SHIFTED OUT OF HYD ERABAD. AS PER THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, WORKHA RDT HOSPITALS HAD COMMITTED A MISTAKE AND THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THEY ARE GOING TO CARRY OUT THE NECE SSARY CORRECTIONS. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT NOTHING WAS SUBMI TTED REGARDING THIS CORRECTION, THEREFORE, HE HELD THAT IN ABSENCE OF PROOF, THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AND ADDITION ON THIS GROUND WAS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESS EE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US: 1. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN SUSTAINING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN ITS ENTIRETY. 2. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS BRO UGHT ON RECORD THE NECESSARY PROOF AND EVIDENCE THAT THE CREDITS IN HIS FORM 26AS DO NOT BELONG TO HIM AND T HAT THE SAME HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE DEDUCTOR HOSPITA L THEMSELVES AND IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ADDITION OUGHT NOT HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED. 3. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE FACT THAT THE TDS HAS BEEN ERRONEOUSLY BEEN CREDITED HAVING BEEN CONFIRME D BY THE DEDUCTOR, IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE TDS RETU RNS OF THE DEDUCTORS ARE CORRECTED OR NOT. THE FACT THAT T HE TDS DOES NOT BELONG TO THE APPELLANT STILL HOLDS GOOD A ND IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ADDITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BE EN SUSTAINED. 4. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE TDS HAVING BEEN CONFIRMED AS NOT BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT THE I.T.A. NO. 1713/HYD/2016 DR. RAMAN BODDULA, HYD. :- 4 -: CONSEQUENT INCOME RELATING THERETO DOES NOT ALSO BE LONG TO THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION OF THE INCOME RELATING THERETO MERITS DELETION. 5. ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS AND ANY FURTHE R GROUNDS THAT MAY BE PERMITTED TO BE MADE THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 2950,159/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 6. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE T IME OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. HOWEVER, I PROCEED TO DISPO SE OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER HEARING LD. DR AND ON MERITS. 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE RECEIPTS FROM M/S WORKHARDT HOSPITALS LTD. AS RS. 5,88,720/ - IN THE RETURN AND AS PER THE 26AS STATEMENT THE RECEIPTS WERE RS. 35,44,878/ -. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY OTHER EVID ENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM AND ALSO COULD NOT GET THE 26A S STATEMENT RECTIFIED, THE AO MADE ADDITION TOWARDS T HE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF RS. 29,56,159/ - (RS. 35,44,87 9 5,88,720/-). THE CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION STATING THAT IN ABSENCE OF PROOF THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSE SSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. 7.1 AS PER THE GROUNDS, THE ASSESSEE'S GRIEVANCE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD THE NECESSARY PROOF AND EVIDENCE THAT THE CREDITS IN HIS FORM 26AS DO NOT B ELONG TO HIM AND THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE DED UCTOR I.T.A. NO. 1713/HYD/2016 DR. RAMAN BODDULA, HYD. :- 5 -: HOSPITAL THEMSELVES AND IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ADDITION OUGHT NOT HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED. ASSESSEE'S FURTHER GRIEVANCE IS THAT THE TDS HAVING BEEN CONFIRMED AS NOT BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE CONSEQUENT INCOME RE LATING THERETO DOES NOT ALSO BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE AND TH EREFORE THE ADDITION OF THE INCOME RELATING THERETO MERITS DELETION. 7.2 ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, THE CASE MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE BEING CERTIFICATION FROM M/S WORKHARDT HOSPITALS LTD WITH REGARD TO THE MISTAKE IN 26AS, WHICH IS TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LA W AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM BY WAY OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH MAY, 2017. SD/- (ASHA V IJAYARAGHAVAIN) JU DICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 12 TH MAY , 2017. KV I.T.A. NO. 1713/HYD/2016 DR. RAMAN BODDULA, HYD. :- 6 -: COPY TO 1 DR. RAMAN BODDULA, 1-1-543/402, LALITA RESIDENCY, GANDHI NAGAR, HYDERABAD. 2 ITO, WARD - 4(1), HYDERABAD. 3 CIT (A)-1, HYDERABAD. 4 PR. CIT 1, HYDERABAD. 5 THE DR, ITAT HYDERABAD 6 GUARD FILE