Income Tax Officer (IT), Hyderabad, Nellore V. Prathikanti Veerabrahmam, Kurnool

ITA 1728/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6552 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B KURMI NAIDU
• Assessee Lawyers: M CHANDRAMOULESWARA RAO
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 148; 144

Judgement Text

ITA NO 1728 OF 2014 PRATHIKANTI VEERABRAHMAM KURNOO L PAGE 1 OF 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI P.MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1728/HYD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) INCOME TAX OFFICER INTERNATIONAL TAXATION NELLORE VS SHRI PRATHIKANTI VEERABRAHMAM H.NO.40-313A, NEAR BHAGYANAGAR PO:BHAGYANAGAR, KURNOOL PAN: AUZPP 4002 E (APPELLANT) (RE SPONDENT) FOR REVENUE : SHRI B. KURMI NAIDU, DR FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI M.CHANDRAMOULESWARA RAO DAT E OF HEARING : 05.05.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 .05.2016 O R D E R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL FOF THE A.Y 2009-10. IN TH IS APPEAL THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A ) IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S 54EC OF THE ACT OF RS .50.00 LAKHS, WHILE COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS FROM TH E SALE OF TWO LANDS IN MAMIDALAPADU VILLAGE IN KURNOOL DISTRI CT BY ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A(1) OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, A N INDIVIDUAL AND A NON-RESIDENT INDIAN, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCO ME FOR THE A.Y 2009-10 ON 10.02.2010 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF R S.1,67,710 AND LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS.5,51,620. THE RETU RN WAS ITA NO 1728 OF 2014 PRATHIKANTI VEERABRAHMAM KURNOO L PAGE 2 OF 4 INITIALLY PROCESSED U/S 143(1) ON 29.03.2010. SUBS EQUENTLY, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT WA S REOPENED BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 DATE 5.1.2012. THEREA FTER MANY NOTICES FOR HEARING WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE, BU T SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS AN D ALSO FAILED TO FURNISH THE REQUIRED DETAILS, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE ACT BY BRINGING TO TAX THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.76,88,128. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) AND ALSO FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CE IN THE FORM OF BONDS ISSUED BY RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION L TD ON 31.8.2008 FOR 500 UNITS @ RS.10,000 WHICH AMOUNTS T O RS.50.00 LAKHS FOR GRANTING EXEMPTION OF THE SAME U/S 54EC O F THE ACT. THE CIT (A) ADMITTED THE SAME U/S 250(4) OF THE IT ACT AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54EC OF THE ACT AFTER COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. AGAINST THE RELIEF GIVEN BY THE CIT (A) BY ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, T HE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. THE LEARNED DR WHILE SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE AO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR AND FILE NECESSARY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO INSPITE OF SEVERAL NOTICES I SSUED TO HIM AND HAS FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT (A ). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (A), IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46 A HAS ALLOWED THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPOR TUNITY TO THE AO TO VERIFY THE DETAILS. THUS, ACCORDING TO HIM, T HE RELIEF GIVEN BY THE CIT (A) HAS TO BE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER R EMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR VERIFICATION OF THE EVIDENCE FUR NISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO 1728 OF 2014 PRATHIKANTI VEERABRAHMAM KURNOO L PAGE 3 OF 4 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTH ER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE CIT (A) AND SUBMITTED T HAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE TH E CIT (A) WERE ONLY THE BONDS ISSUED BY THE RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD WHICH HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE CIT (A) FOR G RANTING DEDUCTION U/S 54EC OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT TH ERE WAS NO NECESSITY OF REMAND IN THIS CASE AND FURTHER THAT T HE ASSESSEE BEING A NON RESIDENT WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO APPEAR BE FORE THE AO AT THIS POINT OF TIME. 5. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ONLY DISPUTE IS THAT THE A O HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO VERIFY THE BONDS PRODUCED B Y THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT (A). THE BONDS ARE ISSUED B Y THE RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD I.E. A GOVERNMENT B OND AND THEREFORE, THE CIT (A) HAS ADMITTED AND CONSIDERED THE SAME FOR GRANTING RELIEF U/S 54EC OF THE ACT. IF THE BONDS A RE ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT BODY AND THE CIT (A) WAS SATISFIED W ITH THE SAME, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON FOR REMAND TO THE AO FOR V ERIFICATION OF THE SAME AT THIS STAGE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH MAY, 2016. S D/ - S D/ - (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 18 TH MAY, 2016. VNODAN/SPS ITA NO 1728 OF 2014 PRATHIKANTI VEERABRAHMAM KURNOO L PAGE 4 OF 4 COPY TO: 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GNT ROAD , DARGAMITTA, NELLORE 2. SMT. PRATHIKANTI SAKKUBAI, H.NO.40-313A, NEAR BHAGYANAGAR, PO: BHAGYANAGAR, KURNOOL DISTT. 3. CIT(A) V, HYDERABAD 4. THE DIT (IT & TP) HYDERABAD 5. THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER