Sai Baba Tata, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-12(4), Hyderabad

ITA 2593/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7131 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KANIKA AGARWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K A SAI PRASAD
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 68; 148

Judgement Text

ITA NO 2593 OF 2015 SAI BABA TATA HYDERABAD PAGE 1 OF 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD SMC BENCH, HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2593/HYD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SAI BABA TATA HYDERABAD PAN:ADMPT2304H VS. ITO WARD 12(4) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI K.A. SAI PRASAD REVENUE BY : SMT. KANIKA AGARWAL, DR DATE OF HEARING: 05/04/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08/04/2021 ORDER THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y 2006-07 AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-VALSAD, DATED 8.6.2015. T HIS APPEAL HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM ITAT SURAT TO HYDERABAD BENCH VIDE ORDERS OF THE HON'BLE PRESIDENT, ITAT DATED 11.2.2021. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. DUE TO NONAVAILABILITY OF RECORD, THE D ETAILS OF RETURNED INCOME COULDNT BE TRACED OUT AND THEREFORE, THE RE TURNED INCOME WAS TAKEN AS NIL. AS PER THE AIR INFORMATION, THE C ASE WAS REOPENED AFTER RECORDING REASONS BY ISSUANCE OF A N OTICE U/S 148 ON 29.3.2013. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REQUIRED TH E ASSESSEE TO FURNISH CERTAIN INFORMATION AND THE ASSESSEE COMPLI ED WITH THE SAID NOTICE. 3. IT WAS FOUND DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH OF RS.16,41,850/- I NTO HIS ITA NO 2593 OF 2015 SAI BABA TATA HYDERABAD PAGE 2 OF 4 SAVINGS BANK A/C WITH HDFC BANK LTD, DURING THE FIN ANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 RELEVANT TO THE A.Y 2006-07. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW CAUSED AS TO WHY THE AMOUNT SHOULD NOT BE ADDE D TO HIS TOTAL INCOME. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBMIT A NY DETAILS, THE SUM OF RS.16,41,850/- WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CA SH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT AND BROUGHT TO TAX. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE T HE CIT (A) STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF A COMPANY AND WAS TRANSFERRED TO DAMAN AND THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS INTO HIS BANK A/C WERE MADE BY THE COMPANY TO MEET THE REQUI REMENTS OF THE COMPANY TILL SUCH TIME THAT A BANK A/C OF THE C OMPANY WAS OPENED IN DAMAN AND THAT THEY DO NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO PLEADED THAT TIME BE GRANTED TO HIM TO GET THE NECESSARY RECORDS AS THE TRANSACTION IN THE CASE BELONGS TO A LISTED COMPANY AND WAS MORE THAN SIX YEARS OLD AND WAS NOT IMMEDIA TELY AVAILABLE WITH THE EMPLOYEE ASSESSEE. 5. THE CIT (A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID REMAND RE PORT, THE CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS NOT JU STIFIED IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL ON MERITS OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS NOT JUS TIFIED IN NOT ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN THE INTER EST OF JUSTICE 3. THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE EVIDEN CES ITA NO 2593 OF 2015 SAI BABA TATA HYDERABAD PAGE 3 OF 4 IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS CLAIM COULD NOT BE FILED B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTE R ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE BEING AN INDIVIDUAL AND AN EMPLOYEE, C OULD NOT GET THE RECORDS OF THE SAID COMPANY WITHIN THE TIME ALL OWED AND COULD NOT FILE THE SAME BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R BUT HAS FILED THE SAME BEFORE THE CIT (A) WHO CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (A ) HAS REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS ONLY ON THE GROUN D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN 6 TO 7 MONTHS TO PRODUCE THE NEC ESSARY EVIDENCE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DRAWN MY ATTENTION TO THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHI CH ALSO CONTAINS CONFORMATION OF THE RELEVANT COMPANY. THUS, ACCORDI NG TO HIM, THIS EVIDENCE WOULD PROVE THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WER E DONE THROUGH THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THE TRANSACTION PERTA IN TO THE COMPANY. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THERE FORE, PRAYED THAT ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE T O PRESENT HIS CASE PROPERLY BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LEA RNED DR, HOWEVER, RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE M ATERIAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, I AM INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ADMITTED AND THE ISSUE IS REMANDED TO T HE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DENOVO CONSIDERATION IN ACCOR DANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE GIVE N A FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. ITA NO 2593 OF 2015 SAI BABA TATA HYDERABAD PAGE 4 OF 4 8. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH APRIL, 2021. SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 8 TH APRIL, 2021. VINODAN/SPS COPY TO: S.NO ADDRES SES 1 SAI BABA TATA C/O PRATURI & SRIRAM, 3 - 6 - 220, 1 ST FLOOR, STREET NO.15, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD 500029 2 ITO WARD 12(4) HYDERABAD 3 CIT (A) - VALSAD, PALAK ARCADE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 3 RD FLOOR, SHANTINAGAR, TITHAL ROAD, VALSAD 4 CIT VALSAD 5 DR, ITAT HYDERABAD BENCHES 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER