Venkata Krishnan Koneru, Hyd, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-12(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 493/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6292 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K J RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: K KULASEKHAR
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

ITA NO 493 OF 2016 V ENKATA KRISHNAN KONERU HYDERABAD PAGE 1 OF 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.493/HYD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) SRI VENKATA KRISHNAN KONERU HYDERABAD PAN: AHXPK 7501 L VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 12(1) HYDERABAD FOR ASSESSEE SHRI K. KULASEKHAR FOR REVENUE SHRI K.J. RAO, DR O R D E R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y 2011-12 AGAINS T THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION S MADE BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 21.03.2013. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, A N INDIVIDUAL, FURNISHED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y 2011-12 ON 31.07.2012 ADMITTING AN INCOME OF RS.9,32,910. THER EAFTER, THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER TH E CASS AND NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THERE WA S NO RESPONSE DATE OF HEARING : 25.08.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.09.2016 ITA NO 493 OF 2016 V ENKATA KRISHNAN KONERU HYDERABAD PAGE 2 OF 4 FROM THE ASSESSEE, THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT BY TAKING THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.65,39,36 2 (AS PER 26 AS) AS TOTAL INCOME AFTER DISALLOWING THE CHAPTER VI A DEDUCTIONS. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY OBSERVING THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE TDS CERTIFICATES IN RESPECT O F THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM APSRTC AND ALSO M/S. GPVR INDIA LTD., AS CONTRACT RECEIPTS FOR HIRING OF BUSES. THE CIT (A) HOWEVER, ALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR RUNNING OF THE BUSES. THUS , THE CIT (A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. AGAINST THE C ONFIRMATION OF THE ADDITION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM APSRTC AND M/S. GPVR INDIA LTD., THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURN ISH THE TDS CERTIFICATES FROM THE APSRTC AND ALSO M/S. GPVR IND IA LTD., AS THEY WERE NOT ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE PRIOR TO THE F ILING OF INCOME TAX RETURN BY HIM. HE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS NOT BEE N ISSUED TDS CERTIFICATES BOTH BY THE APSRTC AND M/S. GVPR E NGINEERS LTD BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT AND FIR ST APPEAL PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE, IS NOW FILING THE ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE US. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD PURCHASED ITA NO 493 OF 2016 V ENKATA KRISHNAN KONERU HYDERABAD PAGE 3 OF 4 TWO VEHICLES WITH BORROWED MONEY FROM SBI AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS INCURRING LOSSES, SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASS ESSEE HAS SOLD THE BUSES AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAD HANDED OV ER ALL THE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE VEHICLES TO THE PURCHASER AND IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE COPY O F THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES, BANK STATEMENTS ETC., BE FORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE EVID ENCE GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE A DDITIONAL EVIDENCE MAY BE ADMITTED AND REMANDED TO THE FILE O F THE AO FOR VERIFICATION AND CONSIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH L AW. THE LEARNED DR WAS ALSO HEARD. 4. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE AO HAD MADE THE ADDITIO NS ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO APPEAR AND P RODUCE THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM IN THE RETURN OF I NCOME. BEFORE THE CIT (A) ALSO, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH TH E RELEVANT MATERIAL AND THEREFORE, THE CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE A DDITION MADE BY THE AO. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVI DENCE FILED BEFORE US CONSISTS OF TDS CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY TH E APSRTC AND M/S. GVPR ENGINEERS LTD AND ALSO COPIES OF THE DOCU MENTS SUCH AS REGISTRATION COPIES OF THE VEHICLES AND BANK STA TEMENT FOR ITA NO 493 OF 2016 V ENKATA KRISHNAN KONERU HYDERABAD PAGE 4 OF 4 INTEREST CLAIMED IN THE P&L A/C FOR TWO VEHICLES. I N VIEW OF THE SAME, WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMAND THE SAME TO THE AO FOR VERIFICATION AND DE NOVO CONSIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO M ENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE GIVEN A FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF H EARING. 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02 ND SEPTEMBER, 2016. SD/- SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 02 ND SEPTEMBER, 2016. VINODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1 SHRI VENKATA KRISHNAN KONERU, 7-33/9 S.S. NAGAR, STREET NO.8, HABSIGUDA, HYDERABAD 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 12(1) HYDERABAD 3 CIT (A)-1 HYDERABAD 4 PR.CIT 1 HYDERABAD 5 THE DR, ITAT HYDERABAD 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER