Shri Keshava B A and Shri Balaji B A (Legal heirs of Late Shri B R Anantharam), Bangalore V. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 2307/BANG/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4540 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-09-2021
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K MALLAHARAO
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause; Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT A NO . 451/BA NG/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013 - 14 SEARCH ENGINE CONSULTANTS, A-6, GROUND FLOOR, MADHUBAN APTS., AUDUGODI, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU 560 030. PAN: ABDFS 8146F VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(2)(4), BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : S HRI K. MALLAHA RAO, ADVOCATE RESPO NDENT BY : SHRI PRIYADARSHI MISHRA , A DD L. C IT(DR)(ITAT ), BENGALURU. DATE OF HEARING : 16 . 0 9 .2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 .0 9 .202 1 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS)-7, BENGALURU DATED 23.1.2018 FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONFIRMATI ON OF THE ADDITION OF RS.41,43,775 AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT BY THE CIT(AP PEALS) WITHOUT ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT SUBMITTING THE SAME BEFORE THE AO. 3. THERE IS AN INTRODUCTION OF RS.41,43,775 TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED THE SOURC E FOR THE SAME BEFORE ITA NO.451/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 4 THE AO. BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE FILE D THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE:- SL.NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE NOS. 1. THE COPY OF STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME FOR RETURN S UNDER THE INCOME TAX FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 00-01 2. THE COPY OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT PERTAINING TO THE YEAR ENDE D 31.03.2013. 00-02 3. THE COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET PERTAINING TO THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14. 03-06 4. THE COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF RAJARAM A. PURNES H & SUDHANVA K.S. WITH RESPECT TO M/S. SYNAPS BIO TECH PVT LTD COMPANY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 00-07 5. THE COPY OF THE LEDG ER ACCOUNT OF RAJARAM A.P. &SUDHANVA K.S.WITH RESPECT TO OUT SOURCE SOLUTIONS CONTACT CE NTRE PVT LTD COMPANY PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENTYEAR 2012-13. 00-08 6. THE COPY OF THE PARTNERS CURRENT ACCOUNT LEDGER ENT RIES FROM 01.04.201 2 TO 31.03.2013, DEPICTING THE TRANSACTIONS WITH RE SPECT TO MR. RAJARAM A. PURNESH 09-13 7. THE COPY OF THE PARTNERS CURRENT ACCOUNT LEDGER ENT RIES FROM 01.04.2012 TO 31.03.2013, DEPICTING THE TRANSACTION S WITH RESPECT TO MR. SUDHANVA K.S. 14-18 4. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) T HAT DUE TO HEALTH ISSUES, THE CASE WAS NOT PROPERLY REPRESENTED BEFOR E THE AO. HOWEVER, THE CIT(APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO REASONA BLE CAUSE FOR NOT FURNISHING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO. HE ACCORDINGLY REJECTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND DECIDED THE ISSUE ON ME RITS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE AO AS W ELL AS THE CIT(APPEALS) HAVE NOT GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF H EARING TO THE ASSESSEE. MORE SO, THE CASE WAS ONLY FIXED FOR HEARING ON 16. 1.02018 AND THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THESE DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE DISMIS SED WITHOUT ITA NO.451/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 4 ADMITTING THE SAME AND THE REASONS FOR NOT ADMITTIN G THE SAME WAS NOT MADE KNOWN TO THE ASSESSEE. HAD THE ASSESSEE GOT TH E OPPORTUNITY, THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR NOT F ILING THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE AO. HE SUBMITTED THAT AN OPPORTUNITY MA Y BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR CIT(A PPEALS) SO AS TO RENDER SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. 6. THE LD. DR HAD NO SERIOUS OBJECTIONS AND SUBMITT ED THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE REMITTED TO CIT(APPEALS) FOR FRESH CONSIDERA TION. 7. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE ABOVE ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) AND EXPLAINED THAT DUE TO HEALTH I SSUES, THE CASE WAS NOT REPRESENTED BEFORE THE AO. THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS GIV EN ONLY ONE OPPORTUNITY ON 16.1.2018 AND NOT GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING ABOUT REJECTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND DECIDED THE AP PEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR OPINION, ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY IS T O BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND REMIT THE APPEAL TO THE FILE OF AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUES AFRESH, AFTER PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO FILE NECESSARY EVIDENCE I N SUPPORT OF ITS CASE BEFORE THE AO. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 28 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021. SD/- SD/- ( N V VASUDEV AN ) ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 2021. / DESAI S MURTHY / ITA NO.451/BANG/2018 PAGE 4 OF 4 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE.