Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Hyderabad V. Southend Projects & Foundations Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1720/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2655 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-10-2021
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 20-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y V S T SAI
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.1720/HYD/2018 A.Y. 2010 - 11 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3), HYDERABAD. VS. SOUTHEND PROJECTS AND FOUNDATIONS PVT LTD., HYDERABAD. PAN: AAICS 9638 R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI M. CHANDRAMOULEESWARA RAO FOR A. SRINIVAS REVENUE BY: SHRI Y.V.S.T. SAI, CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING: 07/10/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27 /10/2021 ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, J .M: 1. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), KURNOOL IN CASE NO.0104/CIT(A)/KNL/2016 - 17, DATED 06/06/2018 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. 2 . THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL AND THEY ARE EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFER ENCE: 2 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 52.18 CRS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. 2.1. LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT PROPERLY EXAMINING THE INVESTOR COMPANIES WHICH INFORMATION WAS ALREADY AVAILABLE IN THE RECORD. 2.2. LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE CREDITS WERE EXPLAINED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE OPINION EXP RESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS AS ENVISAGED U/S. 68 OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 49.18 CRS. 2.3. LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE REPORT OF THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BE FORE DECIDING THE APPEAL WHEREIN THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS INCLUDED CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS WHICH MADE VALUE ADDITIONS TO THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. ANY OTHER GROUND(S) THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. MR. Y.V.S.T. SAI / LD. CIT - DR INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE REVENUES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND SEEKING TO REVIVE SECTION 68 ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS OF RS. 52.18 CRS MADE IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT FRAMED ON 28/02/2013 AND REVERSED IN THE CIT(A) LOWER APPELLATE ORDER. HE SOUGHT TO BUTTRESS THE ASSESSING OFFICERS DETAILED REASONING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED TO PROVE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICATION / PREMIUM IN ISSUE . MR. SAI HAS ALSO FILED A P ETITION DATED 3/2/2021 SEEKING TO PLACE ON RECORD FIFTEEN DOCUMENTS RUNNING INTO 132 PAGES INCLUDING CBI SUPPLEMENTARY CHARGE SHEET, A STATEMENT OF SRI KODALI SRINIVASA REDDY DATED 26/12/2011, SRI KODALI SRINIVASA RAO, DATED 26/12/2011, 12/5/2012 AND 14/5/ 2012; ALL MADE BEFORE THE CBI, DETAILS OF THE ASSESSEES INVESTED ENTITIES ON MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS W EBSITE 3 ALLEGEDLY STRIKING ALL OF THE, SEBIS ORDER DATED 4/9/2013 AND THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNALS DECISION DATED 16/10/2007, RESPECTIVELY. CLUBBED WITH THIS, HE HAS PLACED ON RECORD A PAPER - BOOK RUNNING INTO 127 PAGES INCLUDING THE ASSESSING OFFICERS REMAND REPORT DATED 29/06/2015 PLACED BEFORE THE CIT(A). 4. WE FIND FROM A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITYS REMAND REPORTS CONCLUSION IN PARA 3, PAGE 14 THAT HE HAD HELD THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE DISCHARGED ITS ONUS OF PROVING IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICATION / PREMIUM AMOUNT OF RS. 49.18 CRS WHICH ULTIMATELY LED TO THE CIT(A) PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER GRANTIN G RELIEF. 5. WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE AT THIS STAGE TO QUOTE THE CASE LAW SMT. B. JAYALAKSHMI VS. ACIT (2018) 96 TAXMANN.COM 486 (MAD.) AND CIT VS. D.M. PURNESH (2020) 426 ITR 169 (KAR.)(HC) THAT THE REVENUE CANNOT BE HELD AS AN AGGRIEVED PARTY ONCE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER FILES A FAVOURABLE REMAND REPORT IN APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS. WE THEREFORE DECLINE THE REVENUES FOREGOING SOLELY SUBSTANTIVE GROUND RAISED IN THE INSTANT APPEAL IN VERY TERMS. 6. THIS REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN TH E OPEN COURT ON 27 TH OCTOBER, 2021. SD/ - SD/ - ( L.P. SAHU ) ( S.S. GODARA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 27 TH OCTOBER , 2021. OKK COPY TO: - 1) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3), ROOM NO. 708, 7 TH FLOOR, SIGNATURE TOWERS, OPP. BOTANICAL GARDEN, KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD. 2) SOTHEND PROJECTS AND FOUNDATIONS PVT LTD., 8 - 268/1/D/2, MEGA CITY NO.338, AURORA COLONY, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT(A) - KURNOOL. 4) THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHARGE - 3, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE