ITO, W-2, Hindupur V. P. Ramakrishna Prasad, Hindupur

ITA 278/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 53582 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B V PRASAD REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO

Judgement Text

0IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.278/HYD/2011 : A SSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, HINDUPUR. V/S. SHRI P. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, HINDUPUR. ( PAN AAFHP 3847 P) (APP E L L ANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI B.V.PRASAD REDDY RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.RAMA RAO DATE OF HEARING 30.8.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 9.9.2011 O R D E R PER G.C.GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2006-07 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME- TAX(APPEALS) 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER- 1) THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APP EALS), GUNTUR IS ERRONEOUS AND ALSO BAD IN LAW. 2) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS), GUNTUR OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE UNAC COUNTED PURCHASES AND OTHER EXPENSES RELATED TO THE UNACCOU NTED SALES. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE O UTSET, SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME-TAX PASSED UNDER S.263 HAS BEEN CANCELLED IN APPEAL BY THE HYD ERABAD BENCH A OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.757/HYD/2009 VIDE ORDER D ATED 6 TH AUGUST, 2010 AND THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED UNDER S.143(3) ITA NO.278/H/2011 SHRI P. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, HINDUPUR. 2 READ WITH S.263 OF THE ACT DATED 29.12.2009, WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS, HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. 4. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS RE LIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES AND OTHER EXPENSES RELATED TO THE UNACCOUNTED SALES. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE F IND THAT THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 6 TH AUGUST, 2010, CITED (SUPRA), HAS CANCELLED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME-TAX UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT, AND THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF ASSES SMENT PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE ORDER P ASSED UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX HAS BE COME INFRUCTUOUS. ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FRAM ED UNDER S.143(3) READ WITH S.263 DATED 29.12.2009 HAS BECOM E INFRUCTUOUS AND DIRECTING ACCORDINGLY. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MAT ER, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPE AL OF THE REVENUE. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 9.9.2 011 SD/- SD/- ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) (G.C.GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DT/- 9 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 ITA NO.278/H/2011 SHRI P. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, HINDUPUR. 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI P. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, PROP. BHARAT OIL DEPOT, D.NO.5-3-103, MAIN RAOD, HINDUPUR. 2. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, HINDUPUR. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) GUNTUR 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, TIRUPATI 5. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD . B.V.S