Mana Pradeep, Guntakal V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Guntakal

ITA 2316/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1631 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-06-2019
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 14-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NILANJAN DEY
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B (SMC) : HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. A.Y. APPELLANT RESPONDENT 2315/HYD/18 2010-11 MANA PRADEEP KUMAR, GUNTAKAL [PAN: ALQPM2376N] INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUNTAKAL 2316/HYD/18 2012-13 FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI S. RAMA RAO, AR FOR REVENUE : SHRI NILANJAN DEY, DR DATE OF HEARING : 04-06-2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12-06-2019 O R D E R BOTH ARE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AYS.2010-11 & 2012-13 RESPECTIVELY, AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-KURNOOL, DATED 25-10-2018. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, DERIVING INCOME FROM COMPUTER JOB WORKS AND MONEY LENDING, FILED HIS RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THE RE LEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN CERTAIN LOANS TO ONE SHRI YELAM ANCHILI RAVICHANDRA OF MANIKONDA, HYDERABAD. THE DETAILS OF THE SAID LOAN WERE NOT REFLECTED ANYWHERE IN THE RETURNS OF INCO ME OR ITS ENCLOSURES. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND ACCORDINGLY, HE ISSUED NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE INCOME T AX ACT ITA. NOS. 2315 & 2316/HYD/2018 :- 2 -: [ACT]. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS REPLY, STATING THAT THE R ETURN FILED EARLIER, BE TREATED AS THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTER C ONSIDERED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS WITH REGARD TO THE SOURCE O F INCOME FOR MAKING ADVANCES TO SHRI YELAMANCHILI RAVICHANDRA AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCES, HE T REATED THE SUM OF ADVANCES AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME AND BROU GHT IT TO TAX. 2.1. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE TH E CIT(A), WHO CONFIRMED THE ORDERS OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR BO TH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS, SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BE FORE THE CIT(A) AND SUBMIT THE DETAILS. AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE FILED FURTHER APPEALS BEFORE THE ITAT, BY R AISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR THE AY.2010-11 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ) ERRED IN DECIDING THE APPEAL WITHOUT PROVIDING FURTHER OPPOR TUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,32,000/- MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER BY HOLDING HAT THE APPELLANT HAD GIVEN A LO AN OF RS.9,60,000/- TO SRI YELAMANCHILIRAVICHANDRA AND THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.4,32,000/- IS NOT PROPERLY EXPLAINED. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NO SOURCE FOR AN AMOUNT OF R S.4,32,000/- AND FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION MADE OF RS. 4,32,000/-. ITA. NOS. 2315 & 2316/HYD/2018 :- 3 -: 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE I.T. AC T. 6. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME O F HEARING. GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR THE AY.2012-13 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DECIDING THE APPEAL WITHOUT PROVIDING FURTHER OPPOR TUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,60,000/- REPRESENTI NG THE AMOUNT PAID TO SRI RAMANJANEYULU AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT . 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,50,000/- REPRESENTI NG THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM SRI NAGENDRA WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE I.T. AC T. 6. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME O F HEARING. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEES CASE ALONG WITH HIS FATHERS CASE WERE PE NDING BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND ON THE VERY SAME DATE OF HEARIN G, BOTH WERE COME UP FOR HEARING. ERRONEOUSLY, AN ADJOURNM ENT APPLICATION WAS FILED ONLY IN THE CASE OF THE FATHER AND BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PRAYER FOR ADJOURNMENT IN ASSESSEES CAS E, THE SAME WAS DISPOSED-OF BY THE CIT(A), EX-PARTE THE ASSESSEE. HE PRAYED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF CIT( A) FOR RE-CONSIDERATION ON THE ISSUE OF MERITS. HE ALSO SOUGHT TO ITA. NOS. 2315 & 2316/HYD/2018 :- 4 -: FILE THE RELEVANT MATERIAL BEFORE THE ITAT IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOK. 4. LD.DR WAS ALSO HEARD. 5. ON PERUSAL OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, I FIND THAT TH E ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THERE FORE, CIT(A) HAS DISPOSED-OF THE APPEAL EX-PARTE THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE NOW SEEMS TO BE HAVING THE NECESSARY DETAI LS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMA ND THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE TH E APPEALS AFRESH ON MERITS. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT ASSESSEE SH ALL BE GIVEN A FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND ALSO AN OPP ORTUNITY TO FILE NECESSARY DETAILS, IF ANY, BEFORE THE CIT(A). 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE TREA TED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH JUNE, 2019 SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 12 TH JUNE, 2019 TNMM /PVV COPY TO : 1. SHRI MANA PRADEEP KUMAR, D.NO.9/57, SOFIA STREET , GUNTAKAL. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUNTAKAL. 3. CIT(APPEALS)-KURNOOL. 4. PR.CIT-KURNOOL. 5. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.