Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Hyderabad V. Gayatri Devi , Hyderabad

ITA 1784/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5458 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-08-2021
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 10-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E
• Keywords: Deemed to accrue or arise in india
• Section: 143(2)

Judgement Text

ITA NO 1784 OF 2019 GAYATRI DEVI HYDERABAD PAGE 1 OF 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A BENCH, HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1784/HYD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(2) HYDERABAD VS. SMT. GAYATRI DEVI HYDERABAD PAN:ABAPD1968M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: N O N E REVENUE BY : SRI WASEEM-UR-REHMAN, DR DATE OF HEARING: 03/08/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01/09/2021 ORDER PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y 2013-14 AGAINS T THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-3, HYDERABAD, DATED 24.09. 2019. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN DIVIDUAL, CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN IRON & STEEL, IN THE NAME O F M/S. PRAHLADRAI MOHANLAL, FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y 2013- 14 ON 16.9.2013 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.7,70,780/ -. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OF FICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH CERTAIN DETAILS, PARTICULAR LY THE COPY OF THE ASSESSEES A/C NO.13143 IN BANK OF INDIA, KACHEGUDA BRANCH STANDING IN THE NAME OF PRAHLADRAI MOHANLAL OPERATE D BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE COPIES OF ASSESSEES HAVING A /CS WITH SBI, PBD, HYDERABAD MAIN BRANCH. DURING THE ASSESSMENT ITA NO 1784 OF 2019 GAYATRI DEVI HYDERABAD PAGE 2 OF 4 PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ISSUED A CHEQUE NO.043982 FOR A SUM OF RS.1,78,35,3 87/- IN FAVOUR OF M/S. MAHALAKSHMI PROFILES PVT LTD ON 30.0 3.2013 AND THE SAME WAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AND THE BALANCE WAS STRUCK OFF AS ON 31.03.2013. HE FURTHER NOTICED THAT THERE WAS ANOTHER CHEQUE IN THE NAME OF MAHALAKSHMI PROFILES PVT. LTD , A FAMILY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE BEING CHEQUE. NO.043964 DAT ED 30.03.2013 FOR THE SUM OF RS.1,78,35,387/-.HE OBSER VED THAT THE FIRST CHEQUE WAS NOT ENCASHED BY THE CREDITOR AT AN Y TIME AND THAT THE 2 ND CHEQUE WAS ENCASHED BY THE COMPANY AND IN THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RE CEIPT OF RS.1,78,64,102/- ON 30.03.2013 FROM M/S. MPL CEMENT & SPONGE PVT. LTD. THEREFORE, HE TREATED THE SUM OF RS.1,78, 35,387/- AS A RECEIPT AND ADJUSTED IN THE ACCOUNT. HE THEREFORE, TREATED IT AS DEEMED INCOME AND BROUGHT IT TO TAX. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFO RE THE CIT (A) STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE PAYM ENTS TO M/S. MPL CEMENTS & SPONGE (P) LTD AND THERE WAS NO RECEI PT OF ANY MONEY FROM MPL CEMENTS (P) LTD. HE SUBMITTED THAT CHEQUE BEARING NO.049364 DATED 30.03.2013 FOR RS.1,78,35,3 87/- WAS MISPLACED BY THE SAID COMPANY AND THEREFORE, IT WAS CANCELLED AND A FRESH CHEQUE BEARING NO.049382 WAS ISSUED IN LIEU THEREOF, AND THE SAME WAS ENCASHED AND DEBITED TO THE ASSESSEES BANK A/C. THEREFORE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO RECEI PT OF MONEY FROM MPL CEMENTS (P) LTD. THE CIT (A) HAS TAKEN THE SAID CONTENTION INTO CONSIDERATION AND HAS HELD THAT THE SUM MENTIONED IN A CHEQUE WHICH WAS NEVER ENCASHED CANN OT BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ITA NO 1784 OF 2019 GAYATRI DEVI HYDERABAD PAGE 3 OF 4 WAS ALLOWED BY THE CIT (A) AND THE REVENUE IS IN AP PEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1) THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FAC TS OF THE CASE. 2) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN THE ALLOWING THE APPEAL WITHOUT HEARING THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN THE ALLOWING THE APPEAL WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE DUE PROCEDURE LAID UNDER RULE 46A. 4) ANY OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 4. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE F IND THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS VERIFIED THE BANK A/C AND FOUND THAT OUT OF TWO CHEQUES ISSUED, ONLY ONE WAS ENCASHED AN D IT WAS A PAYMENT AND NOT A RECEIPT BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFOR E, WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). FURTHER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A BY THE CIT (A). IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 ST SEPTEMBER, 2021. SD/- SD/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 1 ST SEPTEMBER, 2021. VINODAN/SPS ITA NO 1784 OF 2019 GAYATRI DEVI HYDERABAD PAGE 4 OF 4 COPY TO: S.NO ADDRESSES 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(2) ROOM NO.808, 8 TH FLOOR, SIGNATURE TOWERS, KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD 2 SMT. GAYATRI D EVI, HOUSE NO.13 - 6 - 433/156 NET AJI NAGAR COLONY, HYDERABAD 3 CIT (A)-3,HYDERABAD 4 PR. CIT - 3 HYDERABAD 5 DR, ITAT HYDERABAD B ENC HES 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER