The ACIT.,Cir-4(1), Hyderabad V. Sri K Pratap Reddy, Hyderabad

ITA 369/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5520 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 369/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, APPEL LANT CIRCLE 4(1), HYDERABAD. VS. SHRI K. PRATAP REDDY, RESPONDENT HYDERABAD. (PAN ADOPK7092D) REVENUE BY : SMT. K. HARITHA ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. RAMA RAO DATE OF HEARING : 12/03/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14/03/2 014 ORDER PER P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M.: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-V, HYDERABAD DATED 27/12/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS 5 GROUNDS OF APPEAL, BUT, AS REGARDS GROUND NOS. 1 TO 4, THE LEA RNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THE INCOME RELEVANT TO THESE GROUNDS DURING AY 2006-07 AND THE SAME HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE NOT REQ UIRED TO BE ADJUDICATED. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NOS. 1 TO 4 ARE REJECTED AS INFRUCTUOUS AND NOT NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICATION. ITA NO. 369/HYD/13 SHRI K. PRATAP REDDY 2 3. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 5, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTE D THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO, ON PERUSAL OF THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT, FOUND THAT THERE IS CAS H DEFICIT OF RS. 15,21,000/-. AS THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY BY THE AO, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS BROUGHT TO TAX. 4. ON APPEAL, BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE STATE D THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE HE FILED REVISED RECEIPTS AND PAYMENT S ACCOUNT. THE CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. THE AO AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE SAID REVISED RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNT, STATED THAT THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSES SMENT ORDER WAS BASED ON THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUN T SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THAT IT IS ONLY A MER E MATHEMATICAL WORKING AND THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR ANY INTERPRETATION AND THE REVISED CASH FLOW STATEMENT IS ONLY AN AFTERTHOUGHT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT S UBMITTED BY THE AO, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE AO DID NOT CONS IDER THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME O F FURNISHING THE REMAND REPORT WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE A LONG WITH THE REVISED RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNT HAD ALSO ANNEXED THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. HE HELD THAT THE AO IS SILENT ON THE FACTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE EXCEP T MENTIONING THAT IT IS ONLY AN AFTERTHOUGHT WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE FILED RELEVANT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. HE, ACCORDINGLY, ALLOWED ASSESSEES CLAIM AND HAS GIVEN RELIEF. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE REVENU E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO. 369/HYD/13 SHRI K. PRATAP REDDY 3 6. THE DR SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE AO HAS SUBMITTE D A DETAILED REMAND REPORT, THE CIT(A) HAS NOT TAKEN THE SAME INTO CONSIDERATION BEFORE ACCEPTING ASSESSEES CONT ENTION AND, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS TO BE SE T ASIDE. 7. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTH ER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDING S, BUT, THE AO HAS NOT FOUND ANY OF THE EVIDENCE TO BE FALS E OR NOT RELIABLE, BUT, HAS ONLY OBSERVED THAT IT IS AN AFTE RTHOUGHT AND, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDIT ION. 8. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVING CONSIDE RED THEIR RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE REMAND REPORT, A CO PY OF WHICH IS FILED AT PAGES 38 TO 43 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS NOT COMMENTED UPO N THE VERACITY OF THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN S UPPORT OF HIS REVISED RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNT. WE FIND THAT REMAND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO WAS DURING THE SEC OND ROUND OF LITIGATION AFTER REMAND OF THE ISSUE TO TH E AO BY THE CIT(A) AND EVEN DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE AO FAILED TO CONSIDER IT NECESSARY TO EXAMINE THE VERA CITY OR ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. TH E RELEVANT PARAGRAPH IN THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO IS EXTRAC TED BELOW: 6. (B) THE ASSESSEE CONTENTION WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 15,21,000/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS NOT MAINTAINABLE FOR THE DETAILED REASONS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGE N O. 4. FACT REMAINS THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN RECEIPTS ARR IVED AT RS. 15,21,000/- BY THE AO IS TOTALLY BASED ON THE C ASH- FLOW STATEMENTS, SALE DEEDS ETC., SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S. THERE IS NOT EVEN AN IOTA OF EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW ITA NO. 369/HYD/13 SHRI K. PRATAP REDDY 4 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ANY OBJECTION ON THE ADDITION OF RS. 15,21,000 WHICH IS ON ACCOUNT OF SI MPLE MATHEMATICS. THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR ANY INTERPRETATI ON IN THIS REGARD. THE FILING OF ANOTHER CASH FLOW STATEM ENT BY MAKING CERTAIN ADJUSTMENTS IN THE AMOUNTS SO AS TO SUIT THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED N OW. THE PRESENT CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY AN AFTER THOUGHT. FURTHER AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED ALONG WITH THE APPEAL IN FORM NO. 35 THERE ARE NO SPECIFIC GROUNDS TAKEN WHICH ARE EMANATING OUT OF THE FACTS MENTIONED IN T HE PRESENT CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMIS SION. THERE IS NO TRUTH IN THE PRESENT CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE. 8.1 THUS, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE AO HAS NOT COMMEN TED ADVERSELY AGAINST THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IN SUPPORT OF ITS REVISED CLAIM OF RECEIPTS AND PAYMEN TS. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS UPHELD. ACCORDI NGLY, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH OF MARCH, 2014. SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (P. MADHAV I DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 14/03/2014 KV COPY TO:- 1) ACIT, CIRCLE 4(1), HYDERABAD. 2) SRI K. PRATAP REDDY, 3-6-218/601, ANVITH AVENUE, HIMAYAT NAGAR, HYDERABAD 29. 3) CIT(A)-V, HYDERABAD 4) THE CIT-IV, HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A. T., HYDERABAD. ITA NO. 369/HYD/13 SHRI K. PRATAP REDDY 5 S.NO. DESCRIPTION DATE INTLS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON SR.P.S./P.S 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR SR.P.S/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./PS SR.P.S./P.S 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR. P.S./P.S. 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.P.S./P.S 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER