Sri Baley Venkateswara Rao, Eluru V. The CIT, Rajahmundry, Rajahmundry

ITA 193/VIZ/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 94085 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 27-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M N M NAIK SR
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

ITA NO.193/VIZAG/2012 BALEY VENKATESWARA RAO, ELURU IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.193/VIZAG/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 BALEY VENKATESWARA RAO ELURU VS. CIT RAJAHMUNDRY (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.AKYPB 2753P ASSESSEE BY: N O N E REVENUE BY: SHRI M.N.M. NAIK, SR.AR DATE OF HEARING : 27.07.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.07.2015 ORDER PER D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT:- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AND IT PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVI DUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF IMFL. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT BY D ETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,66,660/-, WHEREIN THE A.O. ESTIMATED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT 4% OF THE PURCHASES IN RESPECT OF WHICH SALES WERE MADE. 2. THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY CALLED FOR THE RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND EXAMINED THE SAME WHEREIN IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE A .O. COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY ESTIMATING THE PROFIT WITH REFERENCE TO THE NET PURCHASES WHICH WERE CONTRARY TO THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, VI SAKHAPATNAM BENCH IN THE CASE OF M. VEERABHADRA RAO & OTHERS (ITA NOS.345 AN D 346/VIZAG/1998) WHEREIN SALES WERE ESTIMATED AT 8 TIMES OF THE PURC HASE PRICE ON WHICH NET PROFIT @ 1% WAS ESTIMATED. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OB SERVED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONTRARY TO THE BINDING DECISION OF THE ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH APART FROM THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT VERIFIED THE QUANTITATIVE BREAKUP OF STOCK AND ALSO FAILED TO VERIFY THE ITA NO.193/VIZAG/2012 BALEY VENKATESWARA RAO, ELURU 2 IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS, CREDITWORTHINESS, ETC. HAVING REGARD TO THE OVERALL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT ALSO PR EJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO EXA MINE SEVERAL ASPECTS OF THE MATTER, WHILE COMPLETING THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT, HE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-DO THE AS SESSMENT IN THE LIGHT OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE A.P. HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF M/S. V. RAMULU, KAKINADA. 3. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL. THOUGH THE NOTICE WAS SENT BY RPAD AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM 36, THE SAME WAS RETURNED UN-SERVED WITH THE POSTAL REM ARK NOT IN THE VILLAGE NO SUCH ADDRESS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED T HE CHANGED ADDRESS, IF ANY, TO THE REGISTRY. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT POSSIBL E TO SEND FRESH NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN UNDER THE ITAT RULES, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE CORRECT ADDRESS IN F ORM-36 AND IF THERE IS CHANGE OF ADDRESS, THE SAME HAS TO BE INTIMATED TO THE REGISTRY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE CORRECT ADDRESS, WE HAVE NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE EXCEPT TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX-PARTE, QUA THE A SSESSEE. 4. IT DESERVES TO BE NOTICED THAT THOUGH THE LD. COM MISSIONER HAS GIVEN DETAILED REASONS AS TO WHY HE HAD ARRIVED AT A CONC LUSION THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PR EJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE NO MATERIAL WHATSOEVER WAS FILED IN THE FOR M OF PAPER BOOK TO CONTRADICT THE FINDINGS/CONCLUSIONS OF THE LD. COMM ISSIONER. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE AND TH EREFORE WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH JULY, 2015 SD/- SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (D. MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT VISAKHAPATNAM, DATED 27 TH JULY, 2015 VG/SPS ITA NO.193/VIZAG/2012 BALEY VENKATESWARA RAO, ELURU 3 COPY TO 1 BALEY VENKATESWARA RAO, PROP: Y.S. LIQUORS, PRATH IKOLLA LANKA, ELURU. 2 THE CIT, RAJAHMUNDRY 3 THE CIT(A), RAJAHMUNDRY 4 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 5 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM