Viswanadham Sighakolli, Hyderabad, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Circle-12(1), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 1739/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6053 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 28-12-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B RAMA KRISHNA
• Assessee Lawyers: MD AFZAL
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Additional evidence
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A (SMC), HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1739/HYD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI S VISWANADHAM, HYDERABAD. PAN AQEPS2452G VS. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 12(1) HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MD. AFZAL REVENUE BY : SHRI B. RAMA KRISHNA DATE OF HEARING : 16-03-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22-03-2017 ORDER PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER CIT(A)- 1, HYDERABAD DATED 28-09-2016. THE ISSUE IS NOT GIVING CREDIT TO THE AMOUNT CLAIMED IN THE FORM NO.16 BY THE SALARIED PERSON. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME AT A GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF 3,08,503/- AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS. 1,00,000/- UNDER CHAPTER-VIA. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS, THE EXACT REASON WAS NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND IN THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS, AS ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE A.O, HE COMPLETED THE PROCEEDINGS EX-PARTE U/S 144 OF THE IT ACT BY DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 4,00,000/- AND RAISED THE DEMAND ACCORDINGLY. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEES AR APPEARED AND FILED FORM NO.16 IN SUPPORT OF THE INCOMES EARNED BY ASSESSEE. LD. CIT(A) WHILE GIVING CREDIT FOR THE EXEMPTION OUT THE HRA, HOWEVER, DID NOT ALLOW DEDUCTIONS 2 ITA NO. 1739/HYD/2016 SHRI B. VISWANADHAM, HYDERABAD. UNDER CHAPTER-VIA, IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF . ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED ON THE SAID ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 3. IN THE COURSE OF PRESENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE HAS FILED NOT ONLY THE COPY OF THE RETURN OF INCOME AND FORM NO.16 ISSUED BY EMPLOYER M/S SONATA SOFTWARE LTD., BUT ALSO FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF PAY SLIPS, LIC RECEIPTS, EPF STATEMENTS, PROOF OF PAYMENT FOR MUTUAL FUNDS AND ALSO CERTIFICATE FROM ANDHRA BANK AT CHIRALA AND MUMBAI IN SUPPORT OF VARIOUS CLAIMS. ASSESSEE FILED A PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTING AS UNDER: DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE SUBJECT ASSESSMENT YEAR I WAS EMPLOYED WITH SONATA SOFTWARE LTD, HYDERABAD. SUBSEQUENTLY, I JOINED WIPRO AND SHIFTED TO KOLKATTA IN NOVEMBER 2007 AND REMAINED THERE UPTO 2008. I WAS ALSO TRANSFERRED TO BOMBAY AND LUDHIANA AND CAME BACK TO KOLKATTA IN MAY 2009 AND REMAINED THERE UPTO APRIL 2010. FROM APRIL 2010 TO 2015 MAY, I WAS AT HYDERABAD. FROM MAY 2015 TO JUNE 2016, I WAS DEPUTED TO SWEDEN AND CAME BACK TO INDIA ON JUNE 29, 2016 AND WORKING AT HYDERABAD. ON ACCOUNT OF MY TRANSFER TO KOLKATTA IN NOVEMBER 2007 AND ALSO MY STAY OUT OF HYDERABAD UPTO 2010 MAY, I COULD NOT ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE AR WHO APPEARED WAS UNDER BONAFIDE IMPRESSION THAT SUBMISSION OF FORM NO.16 IS ENOUGH PROOF IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF CHAPTER-VIA DEDUCTION, THEREFORE, ONLY FORM NO.16 WAS FILED AS PROOF IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIMS, HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT HAS NOT ALLOWED THE SAME. BEFORE THE HON'BLE BENCH THE PROOF OF CLAIMS ARE BEING SUBMITTED WITH A REQUEST TO ADMIT THE SAME AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. ON ACCOUNT OF OUT OF STATION I WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE THE SAME BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SUBSEQUENTLY, MY AR WHO APPEARED BEFORE THE CIT ALSO LOST MY CONTACT AND FURTHER HE WAS UNDER BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT FORM NO.16 IS SUFFICIENT PROOF IN RESPECT OF CLAIMS. ON ACCOUNT OF MY ABSENCE FROM HYDERABAD AND ALSO LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF PROCEEDINGS I WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE THE DETAILS OF CLAIMS MADE UNDER CHAPTER-VIA BEFORE THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES. THE SAME IS HEREWITH ENCLOSED IN THE PAPER BOOK FOR KIND CONSIDERATION OF THE HON'BLE BENCH FOR GIVING APPROPRIATE DIRECTIONS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3 ITA NO. 1739/HYD/2016 SHRI B. VISWANADHAM, HYDERABAD. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE MAY KINDLY BE ADMITTED CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF MY CASE. INADVERTENTLY, THE CLAIM OF MUTUAL FUNDS IS CLAIMED AT RS.42,OOO/- BUT THE ACTUAL CLAIM SHOULD BE RS.27,823/ - AS SUBMITTED IN PAPER BOOK AT PAGE 12 AND 12A. FURTHER, THE CLAIM OF INTEREST PAID TO ANDHRA BANK CHIRALA AND BOMBAY ON EDUCATIONAL LOAN IS AGGREGATING TO ONLY RS.23,917/ -, WHEREAS, THE CLAIM IN FORM NO.16 IS AT RS.39,393/ -. THE MISTAKES CREPT INTO MY SUBMISSIONS TO THE EMPLOYER AT THE TIME OF FILING OF THE DETAILS OF CHAPTER-VIA DEDUCTIONS, THE MISTAKES ARE NOT DELIBERATE BUT INADVERTENT AND MISCALCULATION, THEREFORE, THE CLAIMS MAY BE ALLOWED WITH APPROPRIATE DIRECTIONS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. LD. COUNSEL ALSO SUBMITTED THAT AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME ASSESSEE WAS NOT AVAILABLE IN HYDERABAD, DUE TO POSTING AT VARIOUS PLACES, AND BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE AR FILED FORM NO.16 WHICH ASSESSEE THOUGHT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT FOR GETTING THE RELIEF. NOW THAT LD. CIT(A) DID NOT ALLOW THE CLAIMS, ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 5. CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSING THE DOCUMENTS ON RECORD, I AM SATISFIED THAT ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM FILING THE NECESSARY DETAILS OR APPEARING BEFORE A.O. SINCE, ASSESSEE IS A SALARIED EMPLOYEE, THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED FORM NO.16 ISSUED BY THE EMPLOYER AS PROOF OF THE RELEVANT INVESTMENTS AS CLAIMS WOULD HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE DDO, BEFORE ISSUING THE CERTIFICATE IN FORM NO.16, AS THE RESPONSIBILITY WAS PLACED ON DDO BY THE BOARDS CIRCULAR ISSUED EVERY YEAR FOR TDS AS PER THE FINANCE ACT. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED FORM NO.16 AS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF CLAIMS. NOW THAT ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIMS, I HEREBY SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) AND A.O AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O TO EXAMINE THE FORM NO.16 WITH THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND ACCEPT THE INCOME AFTER THE DUE 4 ITA NO. 1739/HYD/2016 SHRI B. VISWANADHAM, HYDERABAD. VERIFICATION. ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSEES GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND MARCH, 2017. SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 22 ND MARCH, 2017 KRK 1) SHRI S. VISWANADHAM, C/O MD. AFZAL, ADVOCATE, 11-5- 465, SHERSONS RESIDENCY, FLAT NO. 402, CRIMINAL COURT ROAD, RED HILLS, HYDERABAD 500 004. 2) DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), HYDERABAD. 3) CIT(A) -1, HYDERABAD 4) PCIT -1, HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDERABAD. 6) GUARD FILE