Adinarayana Raju Mandapati , Nalgonda V. Income Tax Officer,Ward -1, Nalgonda

ITA 206/Hyd/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9754 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 18-10-2022
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2022
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences
• Section: 263; 143(3)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 206/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Adinarayana Raju Mandapati, Nalgonda [PAN No. ANTPM7583Q] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nalgonda अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत् यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Smt. S. Sandhya, AR रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR स ु िवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 19/10/2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 26/10/2022 आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM: Aggrieved by the order dated 21/03/2022 passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Hyderabad-1, (“Ld.PCIT”) in the case of Adinarayana Raju Mandapati (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee preferred this appeal. ITA No. 206/Hyd/2022 Page 2 of 5 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from the agriculture. For the assessment year 2017-18 he filed his return of income on 3/9/2017 declaring nil income, but shown their agricultural income of Rs. 12 lakhs. Learned Assessing Officer found that there were cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 75,25,900/- during the financial year 2016-17 but in spite of calling for the details about the source of such cash credits, assessee failed to furnish any information and, therefore, learned Assessing Officer added the entire amount of Rs. 75,25,900/- to the income of the assessee. Apart from this learned Assessing Officer further observed that in support of the claim of agricultural income of 12 lakhs in the return of income, the assessee failed to file any evidence or details. So this amount of Rs. 12 lakhs was also added to the income of the assessee. Accordingly, an order dated 15/12/2019 was passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) determining the income of the assessee at Rs. 87,25,900/-. 3. Subsequently the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad on a perusal of assessment record found that the total agricultural receipts of the assessee were Rs. 20 lakhs, which remained unexplained even according to the assessment order, but the learned Assessing Officer made an addition to the tune of Rs. 12 lakhs only as unexplained income and, therefore, the assessment order is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Ld. PCIT, therefore, revised the same under section 263 of the Act by restoring the issue to the file of the learned Assessing Officer for the limited purpose of verification of the agricultural receipt. 4. Assessee is, therefore, aggrieved by such an act of the Ld. PCIT and filed this appeal stating that the learned Assessing Officer, as a matter of fact, examined the agricultural income and therefore, the assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. According to the learned AR, when the total agricultural income was Rs. 20 ITA No. 206/Hyd/2022 Page 3 of 5 lakhs and after deducting the agricultural expenses the income was shown as Rs. 12 lakhs, when it was accepted by the learned Assessing Officer it shows that the learned Assessing Officer verified the agricultural receipt vis-à-vis the expenditure. Learned AR therefore submits that the revision of the assessment order under section 263 of the Act by the Ld. PCIT cannot be sustained. 5. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned DR that in the assessment order itself the learned Assessing Officer recorded that the assessee has not made any submissions with regard to the source of cash deposits made during the year in his bank account and the agricultural income with supporting evidence despite giving several opportunities, and therefore the learned Assessing Officer verifying the agricultural expense to reach a conscious decision that the agricultural income was only Rs. 12 lakhs. She therefore submitted that there is no verification in respect of the agricultural receipt or income and therefore, the Ld. PCIT is justified in revising the order under section 263 of the Act. 6. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. In the assessment order, the learned Assessing Officer recorded that the assessee stated vide letter dated 25/9/2019 that he has 12 acres of land where he has grown various vegetable plants and paddy, but in spite of several letters the assessee failed to substantiate the claim by producing any supporting evidence and since the assessee was not responding to the notices, the learned Assessing Officer had no option but to complete the assessment with the material available on record. 7. The assessment order does not show any reference to the agricultural receipt, agricultural expenditure and the agricultural income to have been considered by the learned Assessing Officer. The very fact of learned Assessing Officer recording that the assessee did not respond to the notices, leaving no option for him but to complete the assessment on the basis of material available on record clearly shows that the learned ITA No. 206/Hyd/2022 Page 4 of 5 Assessing Officer completed the assessment without any details as to the agricultural receipt and expenditure. It is a fact that the total agricultural receipt of Rs. 20 lakhs missed the attention of the learned Assessing Officer while completing the assessment and it left the learned Assessing Officer to add Rs. 12 lakhs shown by the assessee as agricultural income. Even before the Ld. PCIT the assessee failed to substantiate the claim that he has agricultural income of Rs. 12 lakhs only. Further had the learned Assessing Officer satisfied with the agricultural expenditure of Rs. 8 lakhs out of the total agricultural income of Rs. 20 lakhs, there is no occasion for the learned Assessing Officer to add even Rs. 12 lakhs because it constitutes agricultural income. This shows that this fact missed the attention of the learned Assessing Officer. Ld. PCIT is therefore, is justified in exercising the powers under section 263 of the Act to revise the order and to restore the issue to the file of the learned Assessing Officer to verify the agricultural receipts. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings of the Ld. PCIT and therefore, the grounds of appeal are devoid of merits. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this the 26 th day of October, 2022 Sd/- Sd/- (RAMA KANTA PANDA) (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 26/10/2022 TNMM ITA No. 206/Hyd/2022 Page 5 of 5 Copy forwarded to: 1. Shri Adinarayana Raju Mandapati, 19-1, Raghavapuram Gundlapahad, Nalgonda. 2. The ITO, Ward-1, Nalgonda. 3. PCIT-Hyderabad-1. 4. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 5. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, HYDERABAD