Amancherla Venkata Prabhakar Rao, Nellore V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Nellore

ITA 243/Hyd/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3854 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 30-09-2021
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 147; 68; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B - SMC, HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.243/HYD/2020 A.Y. 2009 - 10 AMANCHERLA VENKATA PRABHAKAR RAO, NELLORE. PAN: AGSPA 2284 N VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5, NELLORE. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: NONE REVENUE BY: SHRI A.P. BABU, DR DATE OF HEARING: 30/09/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05 /10/2021 ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), TIRUPATI IN APPEAL NO. 10425/2015 - 16/CIT(A)/TPT, DATED 04/11/2019 PASSED U/S. 144 R.W.S 147 AND U/S. 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2009 - 10. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FIVE GROUNDS I N HIS APPEAL AND THEY ARE EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: 1. THE LD. ITO, WARD - 5, NELLORE PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y. 2009 - 10 UNDER BEST JUDGMENT U/S. 144 OF THE ACT THOUGH THERE WERE NO ESSENTIALS OF BEST OF JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE. THE LD. CIT(A), TIRUPATI ALSO ERRED ON THIS POINT AND SUPPORTED THE VERSION OF THE A.O. IS NOT CORRECT AND JUSTIFIED. 2. THE LD. A.O. HAS ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 19,33,500/ - TO THE RETURN FILED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME, INSPITE OF SUPPORTING E VIDENCE OF CONFIRMATION LETTERS PRODUCED BY THE 2 APPELLANT BEFORE THE A.O. IS NOT CORRECT AND JUSTIFIED AND CIT(A), TIRUPATI ALSO SUPPORTED THE VERSION OF THE A.O. IS NOT CORRECT AND COULD NOT BE SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 3. THE LD. A.O. DID NOT NOTICE ANY SPECIF IC REASON FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 147 OF THE ACT. 4. THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE A.O. U/S. 147 OF THE ACT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. BECAUSE THE NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SERVED ON THE APPELLANT ON 24/4/2015, WHEREAS THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT RE LATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. THEREFORE, IT WAS TIME BARRED ASSESSMENT. BUT THE A.O. AND THE CIT(A) COULD CONSIDERED THE PLEA OF THE APPELLANT IS ALSO NOT CORRECT AND JUSTIFIED. 5. FOR RE - OPENING ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 147 OF THE ACT, THE A.O. HAS NOT TAKEN ANY PERMISSION FROM THE JURISDICTIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. BECAUSE THE TAX LEVIED BY THE A.O. IS MORE THAN RS. 10,00,000/ - . IT WAS ALSO NOT CONSIDERED BY THE LD. CIT(A). FROM THE ABOVE AND AMONG OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THIS HONBLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND ALLOW THE APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 3. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS OBSERVED FROM THE RECORD THAT THERE I S A DELAY OF 2 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED A PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY WHEREIN THE REASONS FOR FILING THE APPEAL BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT WAS EXPLAINED. FOR REFERENCE, THE RELEV ANT PORTION FROM THE AFFIDAVIT IS EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW: - .. (I) THE ORIGINAL APPEAL ORDER OF THE CIT(A), TIRUPATI WAS MISPLACED B THE ADVOCATE CLERK BY NAME N. SIVA RAMA KRISHNA PRASAD, IN HIS OFFICE. AFTER THE BEST EFFORTS, YESTERDAY, HE FOUND THT IT WAS MIXED IN ANOTHER CASE BUNDLE. HENCE THERE IS NO WILLFUL NEGLIG ENCE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL WITH TWO DAYS OF DELAY. THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY IS ALSO BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE APPELLANT. .. 4. ON PERUSAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, I FIND THAT THE DELAY OF 2 DAYS IN FILING OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL HAS 3 OCCURRED BECAUSE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WAS MISPLACED IN THE ASSESSEES COUNSELS OFFICE . SINCE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL IS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY CONDONE THE DELAY OF 2 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVING INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND OTHER SOURCES FILED HIS R ETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2009 - 10 ON 08/09/2009 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,92,860/ - . INITIALLY THE LD. A.O. COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 144 OF THE ACT BY MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 80,000/ - TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED SUNDRY CREDITORS. SUBSEQUENTLY THE CA SE WAS REOPENED U/S. 147 OF THE ACT . D URING THE COURSE OF RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. A.O. OBSERVED THAT IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR , THE APPELLANT HAD DEPOSITED CASH TO THE TUNE OF RS. 47,67,500/ - AND FURNISHED CONFIRMATION LETTERS ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 28,34,000/ - . SINCE NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE BALANCE CASH DEPOSIT ED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT OF RS.19,35,500/ - (RS. 47,67,500 RS.28,34,000) THE LD. A.O TREATED THE SAME AS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT AND MADE ADDITION U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. A.O., THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDITORS. 4 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. BEFORE ME, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TO REPR ESENT THE ASSESSEES CASE. ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER SHEET, I FIND THAT ON VARIOUS EARLIER OCCASIONS NO O NE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED. EVEN NOW ON THE DATE OF HEARING, NO O NE APPEARED BEFORE ME ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE . ONLY AN ADJOURNMENT LETTER IS FILED CITING VAGUE REASONS. T HEREFORE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE HIS APPEAL. FURTHER H AVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ON EXAMINING THE O RDERS OF THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES IT IS EVIDENT THAT THERE ARE NO COGENT MATERIAL S OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE . T HEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) AGREED WITH THE VIEW OF THE LD. A.O AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITIONS. E VEN BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY HIS STAND. IN THIS SITUATION, I DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 7 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 05 TH OCTOBER, 2021. SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 5 HYDERABAD, DATED: 05 TH OCTOBER, 2021. OKK COPY TO: - 1) AMANCHARLA VENKATA PRABHAKAR RAO, 27 - 2 - 141, GOWDA HOSTEL CENTRE, BALAJI NAGAR, NELLORE TOWN, ANDHRA PRADESH 524002. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5, 24 - 2 - 438, 1 ST FLOOR, DARGAMITTA, GT ROAD, NELLORE TOWN & CITY, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3) THE CIT(A), TIRUPATI. 4) THE PR. CIT, TIRUPATI. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE