Gampa Mallesham, Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1851/Hyd/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7205 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-11-2019
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 23-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NILANJAN DEY
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 22; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B - SMC, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1851/HYD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 GAMPA MALLESHAM, HYDERABAD. PAN: ACAPG 1850 C VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(1), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SMT. SANDHYA REVENUE BY: SRI NILANJAN DEY, DR DATE OF HEARING: 21/11/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22 /01/2020 ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 1, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO.0477/CIT(A) - 1/HYD/2014 - 15/2017 - 18, DATED 03/07/2017 PASSED U/S. 271(1)(C) R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2008 - 09. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN HI S APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT PROVIDING FURTHER OPPORTUNITY. 3. THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT IS NOT VALID AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT STRIKE OFF TH E INAPPROPRIATE PORTION OF THE NOTICE. THE A.O. OUGHT TO HAVE STRUCK OFF THE INAPPROPRIATE PORTION AND INDICATED APPELLANT THE APPLICABLE PORTION IN THE NOTICE. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT CON CEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME AND FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT OF RS. 2,49,085/ - . 5 . THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE ADDITION MADE WAS U /S. 68 OF THE ACT DISBELIEVING THE LETTERS OF CONFIRMATION PROVIDED BY THE CREDITORS. 6. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE QUANTUM APPEAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT (A) BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THIS BEING PENALTY APPEAL RELATED TO THE QUANTUM APPEAL MAY ALSO BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT (A). THE LD. DR COULD NOT CON TROVER T TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. I T IS OBVIOUS THAT THE OUTCOME OF THE Q U A N T U M AP PEAL WILL HAVE BEARING WHILE DECIDING TH E I SSUE RELATING TO THE LEVY OF PENALTY. T HE F ACT THAT THE QUANTUM APPEAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FO R THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT (A) FOR FRESH ADJU DICAT ION IS NOT DISPUTED. T HEREFORE , I H EREBY REMIT TH IS RELEVANT PENAL TY APPEAL ALSO BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT (A) WITH DIRECTIONS TO DECIDE THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH MERIT AND LAW CONSIDERIN G THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE RELE VANT QUANTUM APPEAL. 5 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND JANUARY, 2020. SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 22 ND JANUARY, 2020. OKK COPY TO: - 1) GAMPA MALLESHAM, H.NO.1 - 3 - 183/40/21/23, SAI RAJA RESIDENCY, P & T COLONY, GANDHINAGAR, HYDERABAD - 500080. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(1), INCOME TAX TOWERS, AC GUARDS, HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT(A) - 1, HYDERABAD 4) THE PR. CIT - 1, HYDERABAD 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE