Prabhakar Reddy Kommidi , Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(3), Hyderabad

ITA 281/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8126 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-02-2021
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 271(1)(c); 133(6); 201; 69A; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT A NO S . 280 & 281 /H/20 1 9 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 PRABHAKAR REDDY KOMMIDI, HYDERABAD. PAN ALOPK0277G VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(3), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI MOHD. AFZAL REVENUE BY: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR PANDEY DATE OF HEARING: 24 /02/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 19 /0 3 /2021 O R D E R PER BENCH: BOTH T HESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDER S OF CIT(A) 7 , HYDERABAD BOTH DATED 29 /0 1 /201 9 FOR THE AY 201 3 - 14 PASSED U/S 144 OF THE ACT AND U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT; RESPECTIVELY. I TA NO S . 280 & 281 /HYD / 1 9 PRABHAKAR REDDY K. , HYD. : - 2 - : 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE, RUNNING POULTRY BUSINESS, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2013 - 14 ON 08/05/2014 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 2,10,000/ - . SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND STATUTORY NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THERE WAS NO COMPLIA NCE TO THE SAID NOTICES. THEREFORE, THE AO ISSUED NOTICES TO THE BANK U/S 133(6) CALLING FOR BANK STATEMENT. ON PERUSAL OF BANK STATEMENT, THERE WERE BANK DEPOSITS OF RS. 1,36,08,540/ - INCLUDING INTEREST AND ON FURTHER PERUSAL OF THE P&L ACCOUNT FILED IN I TR - 4, THE GROSS RECEIPTS WERE SHOWN OF RS. 33,40,000/ - . THE AO OBSERVED THAT THERE WERE MISTAKES IN THE ITR FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN U/S 44AF DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 3,34,000/ - . THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID TAXES O N RS. 2,10,000/ - TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1130/ - . THE AO NOTED THAT THOUGH THERE WERE NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE, HE DID NOT APPEAR AND DID NOT COOPERATE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE ACCORDINGLY, COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT, TREATING THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,02,68,540/ - (RS. 1,36,08,540/ - MINUS RS. I TA NO S . 280 & 281 /HYD / 1 9 PRABHAKAR REDDY K. , HYD. : - 3 - : 33,40,000/ - ) AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT U/S 69A OF THE ACT. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WIT H A DELAY OF 718 DAYS. ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PROPERLY EXPLAINED AND THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE FILED TO THIS EFFECT WAS NOT FOUND PROPER. HE, THEREFORE, DID NOT ENTERTAIN THE APPEAL AND DISMISSED THE SAME BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 5. THE APPELLANT HAD FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) - 7, HYDERABAD ON 19 - 3 - 2018, WHERE AS THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN ON 31 - 03 - 2016. THE EXTRAORDINARY DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BY 718 DAYS WAS NOT PROPERLY EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT. THE REASONS MENTIONED IN THE APPEAL MEMO WAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED. NUMBER OF HEARINGS/ OPPORTUNITIES WERE GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT TO FILE RELEVANT DETAILS. ON PERUSAL OF THE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT, I FIND T HAT THE APPELLANT HAD GONE TO TREATMENT ON A FEW OCCASIONS, BUT, THE APPELLANT WAS NOT CONTINUOUSLY IN TREATMENT WHICH PREVENTED HIM TO FILE AN APPEAL AFTER SUCH A LONG DELAY FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE TO THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS APPEAL. THEREFORE, THE PLE A FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IS REJECTED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS NOT ADMITTED. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. I TA NO S . 280 & 281 /HYD / 1 9 PRABHAKAR REDDY K. , HYD. : - 4 - : 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE POULTRY BUSINESS AND HE WAS NOT AWARE ABOUT THE INCOME - TAX PROCEDURES PROPERTY AND, THEREFORE, HE DID SOME MISTAKES IN FILING HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND ALSO HE COULD NOT FILE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. HE, THEREFORE, PRAYED FOR CON SIDERING THE ILLITERATENESS OF THE ASSESSEE ADMIT THE APPEAL AND DECIDE THE SAME ON MERITS. 6. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND FORMALLY OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSION OF THE APPEAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK , THE AO CORRECTLY MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,02,68,540/ - U/S 69A OF THE ACT AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AS WELL AS PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS WELL AS GOING THROUGH THE ORDERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGE D IN I TA NO S . 280 & 281 /HYD / 1 9 PRABHAKAR REDDY K. , HYD. : - 5 - : THE POULTRY BUSINESS. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY ACCEPTED 10% NET PROFIT ON THE TOTAL BANK DEPOSITS OF RS. 1,36,08,540/ - , WHICH INCLUDES INTEREST ON THE DEPOSITS ALSO. WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE AO T O CALCULATE 10% NET PROFIT AFTER REDUCING THE CREDITED INTEREST ON THE TOTAL DEPOSITS. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 9. AS REGARDS THE PENALTY APPEAL BEING 281/HYD/2019, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT BY CONSIDERING THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS IN THE Q UANTUM APPEAL, THE LUMPSUM ADDITION ACCEPTED BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE, PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) DOES NOT ATTRACT TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS NOT AUTOMATIC AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD,[2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC ) . T HEREFORE, THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) IS HEREBY ANNULLED. 10. IN THE RESULT THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. I TA NO S . 280 & 281 /HYD / 1 9 PRABHAKAR REDDY K. , HYD. : - 6 - : 11. TO SUM UP, APPEAL IN ITA NO. 280 /H YD/2019 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 281/ H YD/2019 IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH MARCH , 2021 . SD/ - SD/ - ( S.S. GODARA ) (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDE RABAD, DATED : 19 TH MARCH , 20 2 1 K V C OPY TO : 1 MR. PRABHAKAR REDDY KOMMIDI, C/O MOHD. AFZAL, ADVOCATE, 11 - 5 - 465, SHERSON S RESIDENCY, FLAT NO. 402, CRIMINAL COURT ROAD, RED HILLS, HYDERABAD 500 004. 2 ITO, WARD 9(3), HYDERABAD. 3 C I T( A ) - 7 , HYDERABAD. 4 PR. CIT - 7 , HYDERABAD 5 ITAT, DR, HYDERABAD. 6 GUARD FILE.