Kishore Kumar Potluri, Srikakulam V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Srikakulam

ITA 409/VIZ/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0234 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-06-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Tax effect
• Section: 144

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.409/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Kishore Kumar Potluri Narsannapeta Srikakulam [PAN : APPAPP1427K] Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Srikakulam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant by : None प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent by : Shri ON Hari Prasadarao, DR सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date of Hearing : 12.07.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 22.07.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member : This appeal is filed by assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, “CIT(A)”]-11, Hyderabad in Appeal No.18/2018-19/W-1,SRKKLM/CIT(A)-2,VSKP/2018-19 dated 20.03.2019 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11. 2 ITA No.409/Viz/2019, A.Y.2010-11 Kishore Kumar Potluri, Srikakulam 2. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee along with 10 others was in possession of a property admeasuring 5339.2 sq.yds. situated at Survey No.347/1, 348, 346(O), 96/5, 96/6(N) bearing D.No.7.183A at Ward No.5, Block No.9, CTO Office area, West of Old NH Road, Narsannapeta, Srikakulam. This property was sold vide document No.758/2009 dated 06.05.2009 for a total consideration of Rs.79,29,000/-. As return of income was not filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer(AO) initiated scrutiny proceedings and issued statutory notice, which was served on the assessee. The AO has granted several opportunities to the assessee, but he did not appear before the AO. Therefore, the AO has completed the assessment u/s 144 and assessed the income at Rs.5,67,437/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 15 days. The Ld.CIT(A) condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. But on merits, the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Neither the assessee nor the representative appeared before the Ld.CIT(A). After considering the material available on record, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO and dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee. 3 ITA No.409/Viz/2019, A.Y.2010-11 Kishore Kumar Potluri, Srikakulam 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before us by raising the following grounds : 1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad is not justified in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Authority by applying the provisions under sec.50C of the I.T.Act, without properly appreciating the facts of the case. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, ought to have granted a fresh opportunity for principles of natural justice so as to furnish the written submissions with necessary clarifications and evidences so as to get relief, instead of confirming the addition for not attending on the date mentioned by him. Hence, the appellant prays the Hon’ble Bench for relief. The tax effect on this ground is Nil. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, was not justified in confirming the decision taken by the Assessing Officer in arriving at the cost of acquisition and in adopting the sale consideration without taking into consideration the fact that the appellant did not receive sale consideration and the Assessing Officer had arrived at the Long Term Capital Gain only on the basis of Agreement-cum-Power of Attorney. Hence, the appellant prays the Hon’ble Bench to kindly consider the appellant’s contention in this regard, by granting relief. The tax effect on this ground is Nil. 4. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing, the appellant prays for relief. 5. The Tribunal has granted several opportunities to the assessee, but neither the assessee nor his representative appeared before the Tribunal. Finally, the matter was posted for hearing on 22.06.2022 as last chance and the Bench has given specific direction to the assessee that no further 4 ITA No.409/Viz/2019, A.Y.2010-11 Kishore Kumar Potluri, Srikakulam adjournment would be granted. The case was posted for hearing on 08.07.2022. But, neither the assessee nor the representative appeared before the Tribunal. Therefore, we proceed to hear the Ld.Departmental Representative. 6. The Ld.DR submitted that the assessee has neither shown any interest at any stage of the proceedings i.e. before the AO, CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal nor placed any evidence to substantiate his case. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) has also confirmed the addition of the AO. Hence, the Ld.DR pleaded that the orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) to be confirmed. 7. We have heard the Ld.DR and perused the orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A). Relevant part of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is extracted as under : “8. I have considered the assessment order and the contention of the appellant. It is seen that the appellant is part owner of the property which has been subject matter of sale vide deed No.758/2009, dt.06.05.2009. The consideration as per the document is Rs.79,29,000/- which has been correctly adopted by the Assessing Officer. Further, the value as on 01.04.1981 has been adopted at Rs.50/- per sq.yd as ascertained from SRO in the absence of any other claim by the appellant. In the absence of any contrary submissions with evidence by the appellant, there is no cause for interference. The action of Assessing Officer is confirmed and the ground raised by the appellant is dismissed.” After considering the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A), we do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A) and 5 ITA No.409/Viz/2019, A.Y.2010-11 Kishore Kumar Potluri, Srikakulam even before us, the assessee did not file any material to substantiate his case. Hence the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order Pronounced in open Court on 22 nd July, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (एस बालाकृ ष्णन) (द ु व्वूरु आर.एल रेड्डी) (S.BALAKRISHNAN) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 22.07.2022 L.Rama, SPS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. ननधधाऩरती/ The Assessee–Kishore Kumar Potluri, Bandiveedhi, Narsannapeta, Srikakulam 2. रधजस्व/The Revenue – Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Srikakulam 3. प्रधान आयकर आयुक्त / The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Visakhapatnam 4. आयकर आयुक्त (अपील) / The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam 5. नवभधगीय प्रनतनननध, आयकर अपीलीय अनधकरण, नवशधखधपटणम/DR,ITAT, Visakhapatnam 6.गधर्ा फ़धईल / Guard file आदेशधनुसधर / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam