Achanta Ramu, Siddhantam V. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, , Rajahmundry

ITA 336/VIZ/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4044 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 26-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order
• Section: 263; 143(3)

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM 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.336/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Achanta Ramu D.No.8-176, Near Panchayat Siddhantam Penugonda Mandal West Godavari [PAN : ARJPA9207F] Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Tanuku (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 : 23.06.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 23.08.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [in short ‘Pr.CIT], Rajahmundry in F.No.15/263/Pr.CIT/RJY2018-19 dated 31.03.2019 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is trading in liquor and poultry business and filed his return of income on 30.11.2014, admitting 2 ITA No.336/Viz/2019, A.Y.2014-15 Achanta Ramu, Penugonda Mandalam total income of Rs.5,72,700/- for the A.Y.2014-15. The return was taken up for scrutiny under CASS. Notice was issued and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 23.06.2016 on total income of Rs.14,74,665/- after estimating the income from liquor business at Rs.8,50,840/- (being 5% of the net purchases) and after making addition of Rs.3,45,000/- to the income admitted from poultry business representing unexplained investment in acquisition of poultry farm. The Ld.Pr.CIT initiated proceedings u/s 263 and issued notice to the assessee. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld.Pr.CIT passed an order u/s 263 saying that the assessment order dated 23.06.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for the A.Y.2014-15 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the same was passed without making proper enquiries or verification. The Ld.Pr.CIT has directed the AO to redo the assessment as per law. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following issues : 1. The order passed u/s 263 is barred by limitation. 2. The Pr.CIT has passed the order u/s 263, though the AO has passed the order u/s 143(3) properly which is not prejudicial or erroneous to the interests of the department and hence unjustified. 3 ITA No.336/Viz/2019, A.Y.2014-15 Achanta Ramu, Penugonda Mandalam 3. The Pr.CIT has passed the order u/s 263 on surmises and gestures and without any basis and hence unjustified. 4. The Pr.CIT, Rajahmundry ought to have considered the explanation submitted by the assessee. 5. The learned Pr.CIT, Rajahmundry is not justified in denying the transaction between eh AOP and the assessee. 6. The learned Pr.CIT, Rajahmundry is not justified in initiating the proceedings u/s 263 without considering the facts and circumstance of the case. 7. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the present appeal is preferred. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite of issue of notice to the assessee. 5. It was the submission of the Ld.DR that the assessee acquired poultry farm by investing Rs.1,66,95,370/-. While explaining the sources, the assessee had submitted that he has taken a term loan of Rs.60 lakhs for the purpose and has also withdrawn an amount of Rs.94.40 lakhs from an AOP by name M/s Ramu Poultry Farm at Siddantham Village. But the AO has finalized the assessment without verifying the identity, genuineness and credit worthiness of the AOP and the genuineness of the investment by the members of the AOP. Therefore, submitted that the Ld.Pr.CIT has rightly initiated the proceedings and the order passed u/s 263 is to be confirmed. 4 ITA No.336/Viz/2019, A.Y.2014-15 Achanta Ramu, Penugonda Mandalam 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. It is an admitted fact that the AO has not examined about the source of investment and he has not examined the genuineness and credit worthiness of the AOP. The Ld.Pr.CIT has given direction to the AO to examine this aspect. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld.Pr.CIT u/s 263 and hence dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order Pronounced in open Court on 23 rd August, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (एस बालाकृ ष्णन) (द ु व्वूरु आर.एल रेड्डी) (S.BALAKRISHNAN) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याधयकसदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 23.08.2022 L.Rama, SPS 5 ITA No.336/Viz/2019, A.Y.2014-15 Achanta Ramu, Penugonda Mandalam आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. ननधधाऩरती/ The Assessee– Achanta Ramu, D.No.8-176, Near Panchayat Siddhantam, Penugonda Mandal, West Godavari 2. रधजस्व/The Revenue – Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tanuku 3. प्रधान आयकर आयुक्त / The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry 4. नवभधगीय प्रनतनननध, आयकर अपीलीय अनधकरण, नवशधखधपटणम/ DR,ITAT, Visakhapatnam 5.गधर्ा फ़धईल / Guard file आदेशधनुसधर / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam