THE ITO, WARD - 1(4), Vijayawada V. Smt. Darisi Rani, Vijayawada

ITA 419/VIZ/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2038 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P SRINIVASA MURTHYDR
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 144; 68

Judgement Text

ITA NO.419/VIZAG/2013 SMT DARISI RANI, VIJAYAWADA 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . , . , $ BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A.NO.419/VIZAG/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) ITO , WARD - 1(4) , VIJAYAWADA VS. SMT. DARISI RANI VIJAYAWADA [PAN: ABUPD 8679F ] ( % / APPELLANT) ( &'% / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI P. SRINIVASA MURTHY,DR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G.V.N. HARI, AR / DATE OF HEARING : 0 8. 0 2.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1 9 .02.2016 / O R D E R PER G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), VIJAYAWADA DATED 25.3.2013 AND IT PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-1 0 ON 16.9.2009 ITA NO.419/VIZAG/2013 SMT DARISI RANI, VIJAYAWADA 2 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` .1,78,870/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CAL LED AS 'THE ACT') ON 14.5.2010. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S 143(2) DATED 27-09-2010 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE, THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIV E OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED ONCE ON 2.11.2010 AND SOUGHT TIME FOR FURN ISHING THE DETAILS. AS STATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER, ASSESSEE NEITHER APPEARED NOR FURNISHED ANY DETAILS ON VARIO US DATES GIVEN FOR HEARING AS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINC E, THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PA SSED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 144 OF THE ACT, BASED ON THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED BANK INTEREST OF ` 7,01,098/- IN THE P&L ACCOUNT. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS WITH REGARD TO BORROWINGS AND INTEREST PAYMENTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS. 7,01,098/- BY HOLDING THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC INFORMATION , WHETHER INTEREST HAS BEEN PAID TO COMMERCIAL BANKS OR NBFCS OR TOWARDS U NSECURED LOAN AND ALSO WHETHER ASSESSEE HAS COMPLIED WITH THE TDS PRO VISIONS U/S 194A OF THE ACT OR NOT. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER N OTICED THAT DURING THE ITA NO.419/VIZAG/2013 SMT DARISI RANI, VIJAYAWADA 3 YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THERE WAS INCREASE IN SUN DRY CREDITORS OF ` 37,04,323/-, WHEN COMPARED TO THE PREVIOUS FINANCIA L YEAR. THOUGH THERE WAS A DECLINE IN PURCHASES, THE CREDITORS ARE INCREASED BY 3 TIMES WHEN COMPARED TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. IN T HE ABSENCE OF ANY INFORMATION ON RECORD AND ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY ATTEMPT TO PRODUCE THE INFORMATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS MADE ADDITIONS OF ` 37,04,323/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE A SSESSEE HAS FILED ELABORATE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT SHE HAD PAID INTEREST TO ING VYSYA BANK TOWARDS OCC LOAN AN D ICICI BANK TOWARDS PERSONAL LOAN. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMIT TED THAT REGARDING SUNDRY CREDITOR, SHE HAS FILED DETAILED NOTE ON SUN DRY CREDITORS AND ALSO FILED A BREAKUP OF SUNDRY CREDITORS EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR INCREASE IN SUNDRY CREDITORS WHEN COMPARED TO PREVIOUS FINANCIA L YEARS. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEE EXPLANATION DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS MADE TOWARDS INTEREST PAYME NT AND ALSO ADDITIONS MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT TOWARDS SUNDRY CRE DITORS. AGGRIEVED BY THE CIT(A) ORDER, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. ITA NO.419/VIZAG/2013 SMT DARISI RANI, VIJAYAWADA 4 5. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) WAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE TOWARDS INTEREST PAYMENTS AS WELL AS SUNDRY CREDITORS, BASED ON THE ASSESSEE SUBMISSIONS WITHOUT CALLING F OR REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH IS VIOLATION OF R ULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. THE LD. D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED TH AT THE CIT(A), DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, OUGHT TO HAVE CALLED FOR REM AND REPORT AND GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS COM MENTS ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFOR E, REQUESTED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FO R HIS VERIFICATION. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY ACCEPTED THE PROPOSAL OF THE D.R. AND AGREED FOR SE T ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF A.O. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATER IALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITIONS TOWARDS INTEREST P AYMENTS AND SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAIL ED TO FURNISH RELEVANT INFORMATION TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF INTEREST P AYMENTS AND SUNDRY CREDITORS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINIO N THAT DESPITE REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, SHE H AS FAILED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THEREFOR E, LEFT WITH NO CHOICE ITA NO.419/VIZAG/2013 SMT DARISI RANI, VIJAYAWADA 5 MADE THE ADDITIONS BASED ON THE INFORMATION AVAILAB LE ON RECORD. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITIONS AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE REVENUE OBJECTION IS THAT THE CIT(A) HAS VIOLATED RULE 46A OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 AS HE DID NOT AC CORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS COMMEN TS. WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. D.R. FOR THE REASON THAT T HE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITIONS WITHOUT CALLING FOR REMAND REPORT FRO M THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE AS SESSEE, WHICH IS VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. CO NSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINIO N THAT THE ISSUE NEEDS TO BE RE-EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, T O MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AND DIRECT A.O. TO PASS FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING OF AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSES SEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH FEB16. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . ) (V. DURGA RAO) (G. MANJUNATHA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.419/VIZAG/2013 SMT DARISI RANI, VIJAYAWADA 6 # /VISAKHAPATNAM: ' /DATED : 19.2.2016 VG/SPS )# *# /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / THE APPELLANT THE ITO WARD-1(4), VIJAYAWADA 2. / THE RESPONDENT SMT. DARISI RANI, VIJAYAWADA 3. + / THE CIT, VIJAYAWADA 4. + ( ) / THE CIT (A), VIJAYAWADA 5. # . , . , # / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // 12 . (SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY) . , # / ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM