ITO, Madanapalle V. Smt. R.Pranathi Naidu, Madanapalle

ITA 325/HYD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 53796 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-07-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N H NAYAK
• Assessee Lawyers: S VENKATESAN
• Keywords: Recovery proceedings
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.325/H/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ITA NO.326/HYD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 THE ITO, W ARD - I, MADANAPALLE VS SMT. R. PRANATHI NAIDU, MADANAPALLE ( PAN/GIR P - 1040/ AVWPP 7564P) APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI N.H. NAYAK RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. VENKATESAN DATE OF HEARING : 30.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2.12.2011 ORDER PER BENCH: THESE TWO APPEALS PREFERRED BY REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT(A) TIR UPATHI DATED 10.12.2009 AND THEY PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. SINCE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE TWO APPEALS ARE COMMON IN NATURE, THEY ARE CLUBBED, HEARD AND DISPO SED OFF VIDE THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE REVENUE RAISED THE COMMON GROUNDS IN BOTH T HE APPEALS: 1. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN BOTH FACTS AND IN LAW A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND QUESTIONED ABOUT THE LEGALITY AND ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 144 OF THE IT ACT. ITA NOS.325 & 326/H/2010 SMT. R. PRANATHI NAIDU, MADANAPALLE. 2 2. THE CIT(A)S OBSERVATION IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS NOT CORRECT/NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE ASSESSEE IS A RESIDENT OF MADANAPALLE AND ASSESSED TO TAX WITH PAN-AVWPP 7564P. THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER INTIMATED ABOUT FI LING OF HER RETURNS OF INCOME BEFORE THE ITO, BENGALURU NOR REQUESTED FOR TRANSFER OF RECORDS TO BANGALORE. HE NCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSE E WHO IS RESIDING AT MADANAPALLE. 3. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL WHEN TH E ASSESSEE DID NOT OBJECT FOR THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS AND ALSO CONSEQUENT RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS WHICH WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 18.5.20 09. 4. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL EVEN TH OUGH THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ADMIT THE INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAIN S IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07. IF IT IS NOT SALE BUT A LOAN AS CONTENDED BY T HE ASSESSEE, THE AMOUNT TAKEN AS A LOAN SHOULD INVARIA BLY APPEAR IN THE BALANCE SHEET WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE FA IL TO ADMIT THE SAME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, WE FOUND THAT T HE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN DISPUTE ON LACK OF JURISDICTION OF THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND IN DISP UTE AT BANGALORE IN RANGE 9(3) DT. 28.3.2007 ADMITTING TOT AL INCOME OF ITA NOS.325 & 326/H/2010 SMT. R. PRANATHI NAIDU, MADANAPALLE. 3 RS.2,87,500/- . THE ASSESSMENT IN DISPUTE HAS BEEN COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE ACT, 1961 ON 22.12.2008 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER I.E. ITO WARD-I, MADANAPALLE WITHOUT RECEIV ING ANY ORDER FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES U/S 127 OF THE ACT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE SAME IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW AND IS ILLEGAL AND WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THE C IT(A) HAS APPRECIATED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRES ENT CASE AND HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A GRADUAT E WOMEN AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE TAKEN RECOURS E TO PROVIDE ACTION UNDER THE ACT AND AT THE BEST HE SHO ULD HAVE RESORTED COUNSELLING HER IN CASE OF ANY STATUTORY D EFECT. THUS, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS HELD TO BE E XCESSIVE AND ILLEGAL AND THEREBY THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN QUASHED BY THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO DECIDED THE ISSUE IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND WITH THE VALI D REASONS OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ANY INTERFERENCE IS CALLED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THER EFORE WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDERS AND DISMISS THE SAME. 4. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON: 2.12.201 1 SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) ( H.S. SIDHU ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 2 ND DECEMBER, 2011 ITA NOS.325 & 326/H/2010 SMT. R. PRANATHI NAIDU, MADANAPALLE. 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, GRK COMPLEX, CMT ROAD, WARD-1, MADANAPALLE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, HYDERABAD 2. SMT. R. PRANATHI NAIDU, D.NO.15/365, JOGAPPA NAIDU STREET, MADANAPALLE 3. THE CIT(A) THIRUPATHI & HYDERABAD 4. THE CIT, HYDERABAD 5. THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD NP/