Manepalli Ranadheer, Vijayawada V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

ITA 261/VIZ/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7003 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Revision of order
• Section: 148; 144

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (through web-based video conferencing platform) श्री द ु व्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी, न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बालाकृ ष्णन, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.256/Viz/2020 to 261/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / A.Y. : 2010-11 to 2015-16) Manepalli Ranadheer D.No.28-15-4, Arundapet Vijayawada [PAN : AHWPR5952K] Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1) Vijayawada (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant by : None प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent by : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT, DR सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date of Hearing : 22.02.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member : These appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr.CIT), Vijayawada dated 19.02.2020 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 to 2015-16. Since the grounds raised in these appeals are common, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and a common order is being passed for the sake of convenience as under. The only grievance of the assessee is that the Ld.Pr.CIT erred in holding that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2 I.T.A. No.256/Viz/2020 to 261/Viz/2020, A.Y.2010-11 to 2015-16 Manepalli Ranadheer, Vijayawada 2. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for the A.Y.2010-11 on 19.01.2012 admitting total income at Rs.1,47,764/-. In assessee’s case, survey operation was conducted by ADIT (Inv.) on 22.01.2016 and during the course of survey, the assessee failed to produce the evidence for the sources of acquiring various properties worth Rs.2.31 crores during the F.Y.2008-09 to 2014- 15. The assessee has admitted an amount of Rs.2 crores as additional income for all these years. Further, during the course of survey, it was found that the assessee has got 7 accounts in various banks which contained huge deposits and cash withdrawal during the A.Y.2009-10 to 2015-16. The ADIT (Inv.) worked out the peak cash balance for each year for the purpose of assessment. The total undisclosed income for A.Y.2010-11 arrived at Rs. 32,24,500/-. This undisclosed income contains of unaccounted investment of immovable properties and peak cash credits as follows : A.Y. Unaccounted / unexplained investment (Rs.) Peak cash credits (Rs.) 2010-11 20,91,500 11,33,000 2011-12 53,98,000 76,94,450 2012-13 73,30,000 1,17,38,650 2013-14 39,84,000 81,69,969 2014-15 44,22,000 55,00,380 2015-16 22,82,450 20,43,550 3 I.T.A. No.256/Viz/2020 to 261/Viz/2020, A.Y.2010-11 to 2015-16 Manepalli Ranadheer, Vijayawada The said amounts were not shown in the return of income, in order to bring to tax the said undisclosed income, the AO issued notice u/s 148 and the assessments were completed by the AO u/s 144 r.w.s.147 of the Act. On examination of the records, the Ld.Pr.CIT found that the AO has not examined certain issues properly, hence, opined that the assessment orders passed by the AO are considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued u/s 263 to the assessee. In response to the receipt of notice dated 13.02.2020, the assessee has submitted that all the bank transactions are related to his real estate income. Usually, the purchasers used to advance some amount and the same was deposited in his bank account, he used to withdraw this amount and hand over to the owner of the property after deducting his commission. But as the said explanation was not satisfactory, the Ld.Pr.CIT rejected the above said explanation and passed order u/s 263 holding that it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, since no addition was made on account of peak credit of Rs.11,33,000/- as reported by the ADIT(Inv.) 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before us by raising the following grounds : 4 I.T.A. No.256/Viz/2020 to 261/Viz/2020, A.Y.2010-11 to 2015-16 Manepalli Ranadheer, Vijayawada 1. The order of the learned Pr.Commissioner of Income-tax is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The learned Pr.Commi8ssioner of Income-tax erred in holding that there is any error in the order u/s 144 r.w.s.148 passed by the Assessing Officer on 18.12.2017. 3. The learned Pr.Commissioner of Income-tax ought to have seen that there is no error in the order passed by the Assessing Officer and therefore, the provisions of sec.263 of the I.T.Act have no application to the facts of the case; 4. The learned Pr.Commissioner of Income-tax erred in holding that the order is prejudicial to revenue and is erroneous. 5. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing. Now the only issue before us is whether the order passed by the Ld.AO is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue or not. None appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite of notice served on him. 4. The Ld.DR argued that survey was conducted and during the course of survey, it was noticed that the assessee has got seven accounts in various banks which did contain huge deposits of cash withdrawals during the A.Y. 2009-10 to 2015-16. The Ld.ADIT (Inv.) worked out peak cash balance for each year for the purpose of assessment as follows : A.Y. Unaccounted / unexplained investment (Rs.) Peak cash credits (Rs.) 2010-11 20,91,500 11,33,000 2011-12 53,98,000 76,94,450 2012-13 73,30,000 1,17,38,650 2013-14 39,84,000 81,69,969 2014-15 44,22,000 55,00,380 2015-16 22,82,450 20,43,550 5 I.T.A. No.256/Viz/2020 to 261/Viz/2020, A.Y.2010-11 to 2015-16 Manepalli Ranadheer, Vijayawada This undisclosed income consists of unexplained investment of immovable properties and peak cash credits. The amounts were not shown in the return of income in order to bring to tax the said undisclosed income. The AO issued notice u/s 148 and the assessments were completed by the AO u/s 144 r.w.s. 148 of the Act. He further submitted that on examination of the records, the Ld.Pr.CIT found that the AO has not examined certain issues properly, hence opined that the assessment orders passed by the AO considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued u/s 263 to the assessee. In response to the said notice, the assessee has submitted that all the bank transactions are related to his real estate income, but he has not filed any proof to that effect. Therefore, the Ld.Pr.CIT rejected the above said explanation and passed order u/s 263 holding that it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, since no additions were made on account of peak credit of Rs.11,33,000/- for the A.Y.2010-11, Rs.7694,450/- for the A.Y.2011-12, Rs.1,17,38,650/- for the A.Y.2012-13, Rs.81,69,969/- for the A.Y.2013-14, Rs.55,00,380/- for the A.Y.2014-15 and Rs.20,43,550/- for the A.Y.2015-16. Therefore, the Ld.Pr.CIT rightly passed order u/s 263 and he pleaded that the order passed u/s 263 may kindly be upheld. 6 I.T.A. No.256/Viz/2020 to 261/Viz/2020, A.Y.2010-11 to 2015-16 Manepalli Ranadheer, Vijayawada 5. None appeared to represent assessee, inspite of receipt of notice, therefore, we heard the arguments of Ld.DR. It is admitted fact that the AO has not considered the peak cash credits. It is also admitted fact that the assessee has not placed any material before the first appellate authority or before the Tribunal. In the absence of any evidence, we are unable to accept the contention of the assessee that the purchasers used to advance some amount to him and the same was deposited in his account. He used to withdraw this amount and hand over the same to the owner of the property after deducting his commission. Therefore, we are of the view that the order passed by the AO is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, hence, the Ld.Pr.CIT has passed order u/s 263. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld.Pr.CIT, hence, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 6. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11 th March, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (एस बालाकृ ष्णन) (द ु व्वूरु आर.एल रेड्डी) (S.BALAKRISHNAN) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated :11.03.2022 L.Rama, SPS 7 I.T.A. No.256/Viz/2020 to 261/Viz/2020, A.Y.2010-11 to 2015-16 Manepalli Ranadheer, Vijayawada आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. ननधधाऩरती/ The Assessee–. Manepalli Ranadheer, D.No.28-15-4, Arundapet, Vijayawada 2. रधजस्व/The Revenue – Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada 3. The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada 4. नवभधगीय प्रनतनननध, आयकर अपीलीय अनधकरण, नवशधखधपटणम/DR,ITAT, Visakhapatna 5. गधर्ा फ़धईल / Guard file आदेशधनुसधर / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam