Ifteqhar Ali Mir, Adilabad, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-1, Adilabad, Adilabad

ITA 1741/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2621 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-08-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N SWAPNA
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 234B; 144

Judgement Text

ITA NO 1741 OF 2016 MIR IFTEQAR ALI ADILABAD PAGE 1 OF 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A (SMC) BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1741/HYD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) SHRI MIR IFTEQAR ALI D.NO.13-25 SHADNAGAR ADILABAD PAN: AMPPM 1487 L VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 ADILABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI S. RAMA RAO FOR REVENUE : SMT. N.SWAPNA, DR O R D E R THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y 2009-10 AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-5, HYDERABAD, DATED 30.11. 2016. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 144 OF THE I.T. ACT WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.19,22,525/- REPRESENTING THE DEPOSITS MADE INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT AS THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT DATE OF HEARING : 17.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.08.2017 ITA NO 1741 OF 2016 MIR IFTEQAR ALI ADILABAD PAGE 2 OF 4 FILED AN AFFIDAVIT DEPOSED BY SMT. S. SAJIDA BEGUM AND ALSO A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT OF SALE WHICH SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT WAS IN RECEIPT OF SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE HOUSE FROM SMT. SAJIDA BEGUM. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE EXPLANATION AND DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.19,22,525/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE LT. ACT. 7. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE A TEACHER, AN INDIVIDUAL, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A .Y 2009-10 ON 30.06.2009 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,35,700. THE AO RECEIVED AIR INFORMATION STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS.19,22,525 IN HIS SAVINGS BANK A/C AT SBH. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF SU CH DEPOSITS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY DOCUMENT EXPLAI NING THE SOURCES, THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT EX-PARTE T HE ASSESSEE U/S 144 OF THE ACT. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFO RE THE CIT (A) ALONG WITH CERTAIN EVIDENCE. THE CIT(A) CAL LED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. THE AO HOWEVER, REQUESTED THE C IT (A) NOT TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND DID NOT COMMENT O N THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE SAID DOCUMENT. THE CIT (A), AFT ER CONSIDERING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO AFTER PERU SING THE COPY OF ITA NO 1741 OF 2016 MIR IFTEQAR ALI ADILABAD PAGE 3 OF 4 THE AGREEMENT OF SALE, CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. AGAINST THIS ORDER OF THE CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED THE C OPIES OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE THE CIT (A) AN D I FIND THERE FROM THAT THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT AS AN ADVANCE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SMT. SAJIDA B EGAM TOWARDS THE SALE OF HIS PROPERTY. A COPY OF THE AGR EEMENT ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT (A) AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE AO, IN THE REMAND REPORT HAS NOT EXAM INED THE VERACITY AND ACCEPTABILITY OF THE SAID DOCUMENT. TH E CIT (A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE SAME EXCEPT FOR SOME RECITALS FR OM THE AGREEMENTS OF SALE. THE CIT (A) HAS NOT GIVEN RELIE F EVEN FOR THE SUM TO BE RECEIVED DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEA R. SINCE THE AO, IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, HAS NOT VERIFIED THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE DOCUMENTS AND AS THE DOCUMENT GOES TO THE RO OT OF THE MATTER, I DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO ADMIT THE ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCE AND REMAND THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A D IRECTION TO RE-DO THE ASSESSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AFTER DUL Y CONSIDERING THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH AUGUST, 2017. SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 30 TH AUGUST, 2017. ITA NO 1741 OF 2016 MIR IFTEQAR ALI ADILABAD PAGE 4 OF 4 VINODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1 SHRI S.RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO.102, SHRIYA'S E LEGANCE, 3-6- 643, STREET NO.9, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD 500029 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, ADILABAD 3 CIT (A)-5 HYDERABAD 4 PR. CIT 5 HYDERABAD 5 THE DR, ITAT HYDERABAD 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER