MQ Infratech Private Limited(Formerly known as MQ Engineering & Consultants Private Limited), Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(4), Hyderabad

ITA 420/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5686 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 68; 143(3); 142(1); 145(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD ‘B’ BENCH, HYDERABAD. BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L. P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Virtual Hearing) ITA No.420/Hyd/2018 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) M/s. MQ Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Hyderabad. PAN AACCM 3501H ....Appellant. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad. .Respondent. Appellant By : Shri A.V. Raghuram. Adv. Respondent By : Shri L. Jeevanlal. (D.R) Date of Hearing : 22.12.2021. Date of Pronouncement : 23.12.2021. O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, A.M. : This assessee’s appeal arises against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Hyderabad dt.30.03.2017 for the Assessment Year 2012-13 involving proceedings under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). 2. We notice at the outset that assessee's instant appeal suffers from 256 days delay in filing. Learned counsel submitted that due to the outbreak of pandemic covid 19 2 ITA No.420/Hyd/2018 unable to get the documents from the department which caused the impugned delay in filing of the instant appeal. Case law Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, 1987 AIR 1353 (SC) and University of Delhi Vs. Union of India, Civil Appeal No.9488 & 9489/2019 dated 17 th Dec., 2019, hold that such a delay; supported by cogent reasons, deserves to be condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that assessee's impugned delay of 256 days is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Case is now taken up for adjudication on merits therefore. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed Return of Income on 30.09.2012 declaring an income of Rs.1,41,500. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued. The assessee fulfilled part compliance. The Assessing Officer (AO) gave ample opportunities to the assessee for justification of its case before completing the assessment, but, there was no proper 3 ITA No.420/Hyd/2018 compliance from the assessee’s side. The Assessing Officer (AO), therefore, issued show cause notice on 17.03.2015 and allowed time upto 23.03.2015 and another show cause notice was issued for invoking the provision u/s 145(3) . As there was no response from the assessee upto 23.03.2015 and also upto the date of framing of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer rejected the books of accounts of the assessee and estimated the income @ 10% of gross sales by making addition of Rs.1,75,88,000 on account of unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the AO justified in making the addition U/s 68 of the Income Tax Act. 1961. Aggrieved against the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT. 4 ITA No.420/Hyd/2018 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds : 5. The Ld. AR ( Authorized Representative) reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and further submitted that once the documents were submitted before the authorities the burden is shifted upon the revenue authorities. Further, Ld. AR of the assessee relied on the case law submitted before the CIT(A). 6. Learned Departmental Representative relied on the CIT(A)’s order and submitted that the CIT(A) has passed the order after considering all material facts. He further 5 ITA No.420/Hyd/2018 submitted that there were ample opportunities granted by the AO to the assessee to substantiate the unsecured loans taken by the assessee, but, it failed to comply the basic ingredients of section 68 of the Act, viz., identify of the creditors, genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the lenders. He submitted that the AO issued notices u/s 142(1) to furnish details of unsecured loan creditors such, as name, address, PAN, amount of loan taken from each creditor, their income tax particulars, confirmation letters towards extending loan to the assessee company, copies of their returns of income, bank account statements for the relevant period etc., to verify the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan creditors, but the assessee has submitted only confirmation and addresses but, other informations were not submitted. He submitted that the case law relied on by the ld. AR are distinguishable on facts to the case of the assessee. 6 ITA No.420/Hyd/2018 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. On the issue of unexplained cash credits, the CIT(A) held as under : 6.1 On perusal of the findings of the CIT(A) as above, we find that the CIT(A) has passed a reasoned order and therefore, it does not require any interference. He has confirmed the addition made by the AO on account of fresh loans taken during the year only. We also observe from the 7 ITA No.420/Hyd/2018 order of CIT(A) that the assessee submitted before him that the AO while making the addition u/s 68 ought to have restricted its addition to fresh credit received during the year and not for the total balance outstanding which includes opening balance as well. Even before us, the assessee could not furnish any documents to rebut the observations on the basis of which the AO made addition u/s 68 of the Act before the hearing of the case. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as findings of the lower authorities, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee in this regard. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd Dec.,2021. Sd/- Sd/- (S.S. GODARA) (L.P. SAHU) Judicial Member Accountant Member Hyderabad, Dt. 23.12.2021. * Reddy gp 8 ITA No.420/Hyd/2018 Copy to : 1. M/s. MQ Engineering & Consultant (P) Ltd., 8-2-672,Road No.13, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 2. ITO, Ward 16(4), Hyderabad. 3. Pr. C I T-4, Hyderabad. 4. CIT(Appeals)-4, Hyderabad. 5. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 6. Guard File. By Order Sr. Pvt. Secretary, ITAT, Hyderabad.