Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1) , Hyderabad V. Nazma Banu, Hyderabad

ITA 239/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6319 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 02-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MOHD AFZAL AR SHRI SUNIL KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: C S SUBRAMANYAM
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 239/HYD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 NAZMA BANU, HYDERABAD [PAN: AFXPB1094F] VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI C.S.SUBRAMANYAM FOR SHRI MOHD. AFZAL, AR FOR REVENUE : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR PANDEY, DR DATE OF HEARING : 25-02-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20-04-2021 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY.2014-15 ARISES FROM TH E CIT(A)-3, HYDERABADS ORDER DATED 13-11-2017 PASSED IN CASE NO.0445/ITO-7(1)/HYD/CIT(A)-3/2016-17, IN PROCEEDIN GS U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [IN SHORT, THE ACT]. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. 2. THE ASSESSEES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND RAISED IN THE INSTANT APPEAL CHALLENGES CORRECTNESS OF BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTION MAKING SECTION 69 UN-EXPLAINED INV ESTMENT ADDITION OF RS.63,35,541/- IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESS MENT ITA NO. 239/HYD/2018 :- 2 -: DT.30-12-2016 AS AFFIRMED IN THE CIT(A)S LOWER APPEL LATE ORDER PASSED EX-PARTE . 3. BOTH THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES TAKE US TO THE CIT(A )S ORDER AT THE OUTSET READING AS UNDER: VIII) GROUND NOS.1,2,3,4 AND 5 IN APPEAL RELATES T O ADDITION MADE U/S.69 OF THE I.T.ACT. FACTS OF THE CASE, GRO UNDS OF APPEAL AND ASSESSMENT ORDER WERE PERUSED. THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF INSTANT CASE WAS SEEN. IT IS SEEN THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE APPELLANT HAD GIVEN 2 DIFFERENT SETS OF BALANCE SHEET TO THE DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ANALYZED THE BALANCE SHEET SUITABLE AND GAVE FINDIN GS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH HAVE BEEN EXTRACTED SUPRA. D URING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT MADE SUBMISSIONS TO EXPLAIN THE DEPOSITS IN THE ACCOUNTS. THE APPELLANT HOWEVER DID NOT EXPLAIN COGENTLY AS TO HOW AND WHY TWO BALANCE SHEETS HAD B EEN PRODUCED AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. IT IS NOT OUT OF PLACE THAT IF TWO SUCH BALANCE SHEETS ARE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO BY AN APPELLANT, IT IS NATURAL FOR THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO EXAMINE THE BALANCE SHEET AND COME TO A FINDING. SUCH A FINDING HAS BEEN BROUGHT OUT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH HAS BEEN BROUGHT OUT SUPRA. THE EXPLANATION GIVEN ON CASH DEPOSITS BY THE APPELLANT ARE APPARENTLY IN THE NATURE OF AFTERTHOUGHTS AND THE CONTENTION SOUG HT TO BE PUT FORTH BY THE APPELLANT DOES NOT HOLD MERIT. THE FINDINGS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE UPHELD AND GROUND NOS.1, 2, 3, 4 AND 5 IN APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 4. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RIVAL PLEADINGS AGAINST AND IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED ADDITI ON. SUFFICE TO SAY, THE SAME IS VERY MUCH BASED ON THE A SSESSEES FAILURE TO PRIMA FACIE EXPLAIN ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT SHE HAD FILED MULTIPLE BALANCE SHEETS BEFORE THE LEARNED LOWER AUTHORITIES. TH E IMPUGNED ADDITION IS THEREFORE AFFIRMED IN PRINCIPL E. 5. NEXT COMES YET ANOTHER EQUALLY IMPORTANT ASPECT OF QUANTIFICATION OF THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. LEARNED DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAILS TO REBUT THE ASSESSEES CLINCHING PLEA ITA NO. 239/HYD/2018 :- 3 -: PRIMA FACIE THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONSIDERED PEAK OF HER CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT NOR HAS SHE BEEN GIVEN CREDIT OF THE OPENING CASH BALANCE AS WELL AS THE WITHDRAWALS MADE THEREFROM IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YE AR. FACED WITH THIS SITUATION, WE RESTORE THE INSTANT LATTER A SPECT OF QUANTIFICATION ISSUE ONLY BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFI CER FOR HIS AFRESH EXAMINATION. THE ASSESSEE OR HER AUTHORIS ED REPRESENTATIVE ARE DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ON OR BEFORE 31-08-2021 ALONG WITH ALL THE N ECESSARY DETAILS OF HER DEPOSITS, WITHDRAWALS, OPENING CASH BA LANCE AND LIST OF BANK ACCOUNTS ETC., TO BE FOLLOWED BY THREE EFF ECTIVE OPPORTUNITIES OF HEARING; AT HER OWN RISK AND RESPONS IBILITY. 6. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN ABOVE TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH APRIL, 2021 SD/- SD/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (S.S.G ODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER HYDERABAD, DATED: 20-04-2021 TNMM ITA NO. 239/HYD/2018 :- 4 -: COPY TO : 1.NAZMA BANU, C/O.MOHD.AFZAL, ADVOCATE, 11-5-465, F LAT NO.402, SHERSON'S RESIDENCY, CRIMINAL COURT ROAD, R ED HILLS, HYDERABAD. 2.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD. 3.CIT(APPEALS)-3, HYDERABAD. 4.PR.CIT-3, HYDERABAD. 5.D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6.GUARD FILE.