Veera Raghava Raju Vudumudi , Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(4), Hyderabad

ITA 481/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6217 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-02-2020
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 02-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Recovery proceedings; Validity of assessment; Tax effect; Set aside
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B - SMC BENCH : HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 481 /HYD./201 9 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 09 - 10 SRI VEERA RAGHAVA RAJU VUDUMUDI VS. ITO, WARD 12(4) HYDERABAD HYDERABAD PAN: ABHPV6401A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSE E : S H. A.V.RAGHURAM, A.R. FOR REVENUE : S H. SUNKU SRINIVAS, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 10 / 02 / 20 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 / 02 / 20 O R D E R THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 20 09 - 10 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) - 1 , HYDERABAD DATED 06.03.2019 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW BUT IS PERVERSE HAVING BEEN PASSED WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND TO THE SUBMISSIONS THAT ARE MADE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DISMISSIN G THE GROUND ABOUT VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT MADE WITHOUT VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INFORMED CHANGE OF ADDRESS IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ROI FILED CLEARLY SHOWN THE ADDRESS AND THE SAID ROI IS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE AO. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT REFERRING TO ANY OF THE DECISIONS THAT ARE CITED AND ALLOWING TO SUCH DECISIONS TO BECOME OTIOSE. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE GROUND THAT THE NOTICE U / S.143(2) SERVED BY AFFIXTURE IS BELATED ONE. 5. TH E LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.32,23,535 ON THE GROUND THAT NO SUBMISSIONS ARE MADE AGAINST THE SAME IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT ITA NO. 481 /HYD./201 9 AY 20 09 - 10 S RI VEERA RABHAVA RAJU VUDUMUDI VS. ITO, WARD 12(4), HYD. 2 SPECIFIC SUBMISSION UNDER THE HEADING VALIDITY OF ADDITION IS MADE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION IS MA DE WITHOUT PROVIDING BASIC DETAILS AND PRAYED TO BE DELETED. (TAX EFFECT - RS.9,96,072) FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE APPEAL. 2. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ( AS MENTIONED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ) ON 24.07.2009 GIVING HIS CORRECT AND CURRENT ADDRESS , BUT THE NOTICE OF SCRUTINY W AS NEVER SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) BRINGING TO TAX UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT OF RS.32,23,535/ - . HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ONLY WHEN RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE OUTSTANDING DEMAND AND THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER AND THEREAFTER FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) CHALLENG ING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR NON - SERVICE OF NOTICE AND ALSO ON MERITS . HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE NOTICE WAS SENT AT THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE THROUGH AFFIXTURE . T HE CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED ASSESSEES APPEAL. 2.1. AGGRIEVED, A SSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AND BOTH THE PARTIES ADVANCED ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CONTENTIONS. 3. I HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FIND THAT THE ADDRESS GIVEN THEREIN IS AS UNDER : FLAT NO.202, SATYA RESIDENCY, EENADU COLONY, V.N.COLONY P.O. KUKATPALLY HYDERABAD 500 072, TELANGANA I ALSO FIND THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , THE ADD RESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS GIVEN AS UNDER: PLOT NO.296, BESIDE KALYANA MANDAPAM NEW SHAPURNAGAR, HMT HOUSING SOCIETY HYDERABAD ITA NO. 481 /HYD./201 9 AY 20 09 - 10 S RI VEERA RABHAVA RAJU VUDUMUDI VS. ITO, WARD 12(4), HYD. 3 3.1. LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS THE ADDRESS GIVEN AT THE TIME OF APPLYING FOR THE PAN CARD, BUT THEREAFTER, THERE IS A CHANGE IN HIS ADDRESS AND IN THE RETURN OF INCOME , THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE CORRECT ADDRESS AND THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE SAME TO ISSUE NOTICES TO THE ASSESSEE. I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. THOUGH IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO INTIMATE THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS IN HIS PAN CARD , I FIND THAT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAS INTIMAT ED THE CORRECT ADDRESS BUT THE AO HAS SENT NOTICES DATED 1.9.2010 TO THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE PAN CARD THROUGH SPEED POST AND SAME WAS RETURNED UNSERVED. EVEN, THEREAFTER, THE AO DID NOT MAKE ANY EFFORTS TO FIND OUT THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE ASSE SSEE BUT SERVED SUBSEQUENT NOTICE DATED 03.12.2011 BY AFFIXTURE ALSO AT THE OLD ADDRESS . THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AO HAS NOT MADE ANY EFFORTS TO GO THROUGH THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO NOTICE THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, I HOLD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT VALID FOR WANT OF VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FAILS AND IS SET ASIDE. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 4 . IN THE RESULT, ASSESS EES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 12 TH FEBRUARY, 2020 . S D/ - (P MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 12 TH FEBRUARY, 2020 . *GMV COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SRI VEERA RAGHAVA RAJU VUDUMUDI, C/O AV RAGHURAM, FLAT NO.610, 6 TH FLOOR, BABUKHAN ESTATE, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD 500 001. 2. ITO, WARD 12(4), HYDERABAD. 3. ACIT, RANGE 2, HYDERABAD 4. CIT(A) - 1, HYDERABAD 5. PR.CIT - 1 , HYDERABAD 6 . D.R. ITAT HYDERABAD 7 . GUARD FILE ITA NO. 481 /HYD./201 9 AY 20 09 - 10 S RI VEERA RABHAVA RAJU VUDUMUDI VS. ITO, WARD 12(4), HYD. 4 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 10/02/20 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE AUTHOR 1 1 /02/20 3. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO SRPS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 12/02/20 7. FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK