The ACIT, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam V. M/s M/s Poorvi Pictures, Visakhapatnam

ITA 409/VIZ/2002

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7075 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 8 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2002
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G S S GOPINATH
• Assessee Lawyers: C V S MURTHY
• Keywords: Assessment record

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.409/VIZAG/2002 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1998-99 ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1) VISAKHAPATNAM M/S. POORVI PICTURES VISAKHAPATNAM (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) GIR NO.P-343 APPELLANT BY: SHRI G.S.S. GOPINATH, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI C.V.S. MURTHY, CA ORDER PER SHRI S.K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON VARIOUS GROUNDS WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FA CTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT HAVE DELETED THE ADDITIONS OF RS.9,82,965/- AND RS.5,05,000/- BASING ON THE EVIDE NCE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT HAVE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT TH E EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFORE HIM WITHOUT ALLOWING REAS ONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE SUC H EVIDENCE AS PER RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT HAVE IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED RS.1,72,181/- AS ITS INCOME FO R THE ASST. YEAR 1998-99 VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 28.3.2001 FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF H EARING. 2. THOUGH THE REVENUE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS BU T THEY ALL RELATE TO THE VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 46A OF THE I .T. RULES. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE HAS EMPHATICALLY ARGUED THAT ONLY THOSE EVIDENCE WERE P LACED BEFORE THE CIT(A) FOR HIS CONSIDERATIONS WHICH WERE ORIGINALLY FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE FACTS, SR. D.R. WAS DIRECTED TO PRODUCE THE ASSESSMENT 2 RECORD. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMENT RECORD WAS PRO DUCED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND FROM ITS CAREFUL PERUSAL, WE FIND THAT CIT(A) HAS PLACED A RELIANCE ONLY UPON THOSE DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE ALREA DY FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS SUCH, THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES. WE HOWEVER, CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON MERIT AND WE FIND NO INFIRMITY THEREIN. MOREOVER, NO ARGUMENT WAS RAISED ON MERIT BY THE LD. D.R. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE F IND NO JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGL Y, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.2.2010 SD/- SD/- (BR BASKARAN) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VG/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM, DATED 16 TH FEBRUARY, 2010 COPY TO 1 THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM 2 M/S. POORVI PICTURES, 47-11-9, NEAR DIAMOND PARK, DWARAKANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 3 THE CIT-2, VISAKHAPATNAM 4 THE CIT(A)-I, VISAKHAPATNAM 5 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM