Ramakrishna Damerla , Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(5), Hyderabad

ITA 1806/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7561 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJEEV BHAPAT
• Assessee Lawyers: SHILPA MANIYAR
• Section: 144; 69C; 80C; 201

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH SMC, HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1806/HYD/2019 AY: 2015 - 16 RAMAKRISHNA DAMERLA, HYDERABAD. PAN: ALJPD 8612 K VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12(5), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SMT. SHILPA MANIYAR REVENUE BY: SHRI SANJEEV BHAPAT, DR DATE OF HEARING: 11/03/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23 /03/2021 ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 1 , HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO. 10008/2018 - 19/ITO 12(5)/CIT(A) - 1/HYD/2019 - 20, DATED 08/08/2019 PASSED U/S. 144 R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 201 5 - 16 . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SIX GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL AND THEY ARE EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: - 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW WHILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S. 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ENHANCING THE ADDITION TO INCOME OF RS. 32,30,860 WITHO UT OFFERING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO REBUT. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS COMPLETED ASSESSMENT BASED ON INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND ERRED IN DRAWING CONCLUSION CONTRARY TO RECORD PRODUCED WITHOUT STATING ANY REASON. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ENHANCING THE ADDITION U/S. 69C AS INVESTMENTS FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCES, IGNORING THAT ALL THE PAYMENTS FOR INVESTMENTS HAVE GONE THROUGH THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. 2 5. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS TOWARDS DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S. 80C WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO FILE THE EVIDENCE. 6. FOR THESE AND ANY OTHER GROUNDS WHICH MAY BE RAISED ON OR BEFORE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3 . AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE ME THAT THE LD. AO HAD PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER U/S. 144 OF THE ACT WIT HOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD AND MADE CERTAIN ADDITION S AGGREGATING TO RS. 6,55,853 / - AND DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 9,09,270/ - . IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) ALSO DID NOT CONSIDER THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE MOREOVER , WITHOUT PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE LD. CIT(A) ENHANCED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE PROVIDED WITH ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO PURSUE HIS CASE BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND OBJECTED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND ARGUED THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE, HO WEVER, ON THE GIVEN DATES OF HEARING, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. AO AND EVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM WITH EVIDENCE . UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIE S HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO PASS ORDERS ON MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HENCE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES DO NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 3 4 . I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. ON EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR. THE LD. AO HAD POSTED THE CASE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF T HE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. AO ON THE GIVEN DATES OF HEARING AND EVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT IMPROVE HIS CASE . HENCE, THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES WERE LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO PASS ORDERS BASED ON THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON R ECORD. IN THIS SITUATION, I DO NOT FIND MUCH STRENGTH IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE PRAYER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND THE NATURE OF ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I HEREBY REMIT TH E MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. AO FOR DE - NOVO CONSIDERATION THEREBY PROVIDING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. AT THE SAME BREATH, I ALSO HEREBY CAUTION THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTLY CO - OPERATE BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THEIR P ROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE O RDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON THE RECORD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 5 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. 4 PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 23 RD MARCH , 2021. SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 23 RD MARCH , 2021. OKK COPY TO: - 1) RAMAKRISHNA DAMERLA, FLAT NO. 301, SRI SAI NILAYAM, ADDAGUTTA SOCIETY, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12(5), 7 TH FLOOR, A - BLOCK, INCOME TAX TOWERS, A C GUARDS, HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT(A) - 1, HYDERABAD. 4) THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE