K.N. Srinivasareddy, Hindupur, Hindupur V. ITO, Ward-1, Hindupur, Hindupur

ITA 469/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6449 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M SITARAM
• Keywords: Onus to prove

Judgement Text

1 ITA.NO.469/HYD/2016 MR. K.N. SRINIVASA REDDY, HINDUPUR IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A (SMC) : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.469/HYD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 MR. K.N. SRINIVASA REDDY, HINDUPUR. PAN AXGPS7741B VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HINDUPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : - NONE - FOR REVENUE : MR. M. SITARAM DATE OF HEARING : 16.06.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 .06.2016 ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), KURNOOL DATED 22.01.2016 A ND IT PERTAINS TO THE A.Y. 2009-2010. THE FOLLOWING GROUN D HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITO HAD NOT DISPROVED THE STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT HE BORROWED AMOUNT OF RS.6,50,000. ITO MIGHT HAVE NOT IMPOSED PENALTY. CIT(A) MIGHT HAVE CONSIDERED THE AFFIDAVIT BACKED THE DOCUMENTS SPECIFYING CREDITWORTHINESS AND DELETED THE PENALTY. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS CASE HAS CONFIRMED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE A.O. WITH RESPECT TO TWO ADDI TIONS BEING CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK. THE EXPLANATION OF THE 2 ITA.NO.469/HYD/2016 MR. K.N. SRINIVASA REDDY, HINDUPUR ASSESSEE IS THAT THESE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED F ROM ONE MR. B.N. SIVA REDDY AND MR. ASIFULLA TO THE TUN E OF RS.4 LAKHS AND RS.2.50 LAKHS RESPECTIVELY. THE ADDI TION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS F AILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINE NESS OF THESE PERSONS. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WE FIND TH AT THE A.O. DUE TO PAUCITY OF TIME HAS NOT GRANTED ADE QUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. AT PAGE-2 OF THE ASSES SMENT ORDER, HE RECORDS THAT THIS IS A TIME BARRING CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AFFIDAVITS FROM LENDERS, THUS LE ADING EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF HIS CLAIM OF HAVING RECEIVED THE MONEY FROM THESE CREDITORS. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE BURDEN OF PROOF THAT LAY ON HIM. UNDE R THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW TH AT THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BONAFIDE. HENCE, THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IS HEREB Y QUASHED. 3. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17.06.2016. SD/- (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 17 TH JUNE, 2016. VBP/- 3 ITA.NO.469/HYD/2016 MR. K.N. SRINIVASA REDDY, HINDUPUR COPY TO 1. MR. K.N. SRINIVASA REDDY, H.NO.9 - 1 - 58/53, 1 ST CROSS PANDURANGA NAGAR, HINDUPUR- 515 201. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, HINDUPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 3. CIT(A), KURNOOL . 4. PR. CIT, KURNOOL. 5. D.R. ITAT A (SMC) BENCH, HYDERABAD 6. GUARD FILE