Umesh Purushotam Jethwani , Hyderabad V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

ITA 287/Hyd/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2256 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 20-03-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P.MURALI MOHANA RAO
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 69; 144; 143(2); 69A; 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT A NO. 287 /H/20 20 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 0 1 6 - 1 7 UMESH PURUSHOTAM JETHWANI, HYDERABAD. PAN A BNPJ8633N VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX , CIRCLE 5 ( 1 ), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI P. MURALI MOHANA RAO REVENUE BY: S HRI ROHIT MUJUMDAR DATE OF HEARING: 16 /0 6 /2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30 /0 6 /2021 O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M. : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST CIT(A) 4 , HYDERABAD S ORDER DATED 2 8 / 0 2 /20 20 FOR AY 20 1 6 - 1 7 INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S 14 4 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW TO THE EXTENT THE ORDER IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE. I TA NO. 287 /HYD /20 20 UMESH PURUSHOTAM JETHWANI, HYD. : - 2 - : 2. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT A O ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER U/S 144 OF THE ACT WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEIN9 HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT A O ERRED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.15,12,121 / - TOWARDS DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST CLAIMED ON HOUSE PROPERTY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GENUINELY USED THE LOAN TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE BANK STATEMENTS. 4. THE LD. C IT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 24(B) TOWARDS THE INTEREST ON BORROWED CAPITAL AMOUNTING TO RS. 15,12,121/ - FOR CONSTRUCTION/ACQUISITION OF HOUSE PROPERTY WHILE CALCULATING THE' INCOME UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY'. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT A O ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.90,13,888/ - AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY U/S 69A OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAV E APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY ADMITTED THE INCOME OF RS. 89,39,988 UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY' AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 73,900/ - WAS EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS PAYMENT TO OFFICE OF ASST DIRECTOR MINES GEOLOGY. 7. THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT A O ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.10,80,000/ - TOWARDS DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. I TA NO. 287 /HYD /20 20 UMESH PURUSHOTAM JETHWANI, HYD. : - 3 - : 8. THE LD . CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 10,80,000/ - TOWARDS THE INTEREST ON BORROWED CAPITAL AS SUCH IT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 24(B) OF THE ACT. 9. THE A O ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.59,25, 636/ - AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY U/S 69A OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 10. THE LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE NECESSARY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WITH RESPECT TO THE DISALLOWANC E OF EXEMPTED INCOME MADE U/S 69 OF INCOME TAX ACT,1961 AMOUNTING TO RS. 59,25,636/ - AND OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE AD HAD ERRED IN MAKING THE ABOVE SAID ADDITION U/S. 69 OF ACT. 11. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR MODIFY OR SUBSTITUTE ANY O THER POINT TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2016 - 17 ON 31/03/2018 ADMITTING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 36,56,130/ - , WHICH COMPRISED OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND INCOME FROM OTHE R SOURCES. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR COMPLETE SCRUTINY AND NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 17/08/2018. SINCE T HERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE TO THE SAID NOTICE, THE AO ISSUED FURTHER NOTICES, BUT THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE AND HE DID NOT FURNISH ANY INFORMATION. I TA NO. 287 /HYD /20 20 UMESH PURUSHOTAM JETHWANI, HYD. : - 4 - : 2.1 THE AO PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER U/S 144 ASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE AT RS. 2,11,87,775/ - BY MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS. 3. WHEN THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 5. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTE D THAT THE LD. A.O. HAD PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER U/S. 144 OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AFFORDED PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD . A.O. IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ONE MORE O PPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. 6. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND ARGUED THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ON THE GIVEN DATES OF HEARING, NEITHER TH E ASSESSEE NOR HIS REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. A. THEREFORE THE LD. AO HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO PASS EX - PARTE ORDER BASED ON THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HENCE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES DO NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. I TA NO. 287 /HYD /20 20 UMESH PURUSHOTAM JETHWANI, HYD. : - 5 - : 7 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AS WELL AS GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES. . ON EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, CONSIDERING THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL AS WELL AS THE PRAYER OF THE LD. AR AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. A.O. IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERITS BY PROVIDING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD AT ITS OWN RISK AND RESPONSIBIL ITY . AT THE SAME BREAT H, WE ALSO HEREBY CAUTION THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTLY CO - OPERATE BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THE PROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERITS BASED ON THE MATER IALS ON THE RECORD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE O PEN COURT ON 30 TH JUNE , 2021 . SD/ - SD/ - ( S.S. GODARA ) (L . P . SAHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDE RABAD, DATED : 30 TH JUNE , 20 2 1 . K V I TA NO. 287 /HYD /20 20 UMESH PURUSHOTAM JETHWANI, HYD. : - 6 - : C OPY TO : 1 UMESH PURUSHOTAM JETHWANI , C/O P. MURALI & CO., CAS, 6 - 3 - 655/2/3, 1 ST FLOOR, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD 82 2 DC IT, CIRCLE 5 ( 1 ) , HYDERABAD. 3 C I T(A) 4 , GUNTUR 4 PR. CIT - 4 , HYDERABAD 5 ITAT, DR, HYDERABAD. 6 GUARD FILE.