Sanjeeve Reddy Siram, Bhainsa V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nirmal

ITA 495/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7343 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 18-12-2019
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 09-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL BABU
• Assessee Lawyers: P VINOD
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A - SMC , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 495 /HYD/20 18 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 13 - 14 SANJEEVA REDDY SIRAM, SHOT NO.4 - 3 - 96, GANDHI GUNJ, BHAINSA 504103. PAN: AEYPS 0786 B VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, NIRMAL. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI P. VINOD REVENUE BY: SRI SUNIL BABU, DR DATE OF HEARING: 18/12/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23 / 01/2020 ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 5, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO. 0122/2016 - 17/CIT(A) - 5, DATED 26/12/2017 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2013 - 14. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL: 1 . THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 5 DATED 26/12/2017 IN ITA NO. 0122/2016 - 17/CIT(A) - 5 IS AGAINST THE LAW AND FACTS. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 14,27,875/ - REPRESENTING THE DIFFERENCES IN BALANCES OF SUNDRY CREDITOR IN BOOKS VIS - - VI S THE BALANCES CONFIRMED BY THE RESPECTIVE SUNDRY CREDITORS. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DIRECTED TO ADD THE ELEMENT OF GROSS PROFIT OF SUCH EXCESS AMOUNT (PURCHASES) AND NOT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT. 2 4. ASSUMING WHILE DENYING THAT THE CIT(A)S ORDER IS CORRE CT, THE VALUE OF THE CLOSING OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY RS. 14,75,875/ - , ELSE, IT WOULD RESULT IN DOUBLE ADDITION, IN OTHER WORDS SHALL HAVE CASCADING EFFECT IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE AFORESAID GROUNDS AS OCCASION MAY REQUIRE. 3 . AT THE OUTSET, IT IS OBSERVED FROM THE RECORD THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 6 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY WHEREIN THE REASONS FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT WAS EXPLAINED. FOR REFERENCE, THE RELEVANT P ORTIONS FROM THE AFFIDAVIT IS EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW: - ..THE PETITIONER HUMBLY SUBMITS THAT HE IS AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS. DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD 25/6/2016 TO 1/7/2016 HE WAS SUFFERING FROM VIRAL FEVER AND WAS UNDERGOING MEDICAL TREATMENT. A COPY OF T HE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE IS ANNEXED TO THIS PETITION. HE COULD CONTACT THE ADVOCATE ON 2/7/2016 AND GOT THE APPEAL PREPARED ON THE SAME DAY. THE APPEAL IS BEING FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT ON 4/7/2016 AS 2/7/2016 AND 3/7/2016 ARE CLOSED HOLIDAYS FOR THE HONBLE ITAT ON ACCOUNT OF SATURDAY AND SUNDAY. THE PETITIONER HUMBLY SUBMITS THAT THE DELAY IS FOR THE REASONS SUBMITTED ABOVE WHICH ARE BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PETITIONER AND IS NOT INTENTIONAL. THE PETITIONER THEREFORE, PRAYS THE HONBLE INCOME TAX A PPELLATE TRIBUNAL TO KINDLY CONDONE THE DELAY AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS GRANTING RELIEF AS PRAYED FOR. 4. ON PERUSAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, I FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE . T H EREFORE , IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I HEREBY CONDONE THE DELAY OF 6 DAYS IN THE FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL A ND PROCEED TO HEAR THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 3 5. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US TH AT THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS. 14,27,875/ - W AS MADE BY THE LD. AO INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT WITH RESPECT TO C ESSATION OF LIABILITY. T HE LD. AR F URTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. R E VENUE AUTHORITIES HAD A RRIVED AT THE ABOVE CONCLUSION BECAUSE THE CREDITORS HAD CON FIRMED LESSER CREDIT THAN W HAT WAS DISCLOSED IN THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS OF TH E ASSESSEE. T HE LD. AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT PROPER RECONCIL IATION STATEMENT WAS NOT FURNISHED BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES DUE TO WHICH THEY HAVE MADE SUCH ADDITION. T HE LD. AR PLEAD ED THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE PROVIDED TO THE AS S ESSEE FOR PROVIDING THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT ALO NG WITH OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE LD. RE VE N UE AUTH ORITIES IN ORDER TO PROV E THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDIT BALANCE OF THE CR E DITORS . THE LD. DR O N THE OTHER HAND VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR. 6. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ON AND CAREFULLY P ERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. T HE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE PROPER EXPLANATION ALONG COGENT EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THE EARLIER OCCASION S IS NOT APPRECIA BLE. HOWEVER, CONSIDER THE P LIGHT OF THE ASSESSE E, IN THE I NTEREST OF JUSTICE, I HEREBY REMIT THE MAT TER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO FOR FR ESH CONSIDERATION THEREBY PROVIDING THE ASSESSEE WITH ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF BE ING HEARD. I ALSO DIRECT THE L D A O T O ACCEPT AND EXAMINE ANY FRESH EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF HIS 4 C LAIM AND THEREAFT ER DECIDE THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH ME RIT AND LAW. I ALSO CAUTION THE ASSESSEE TO PRO MPTLY CO - O PERATE BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES FAILING WHICH THEY SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDI NGLY . 7. I N THE RESULT , APPEAL FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURP OSES AS INDICATED H EREINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 3 RD JANUARY, 2020 . SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 23 RD JANUARY, 2020. OKK COPY TO: - 1) SANJEEV A REDDY SIRAM C/O. RAVINDRA CHENJI, ADVOCATE, CIT(A) - 308, AHUJA ESTATE, HYDERABAD. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, NIRMAL. 3) THE CIT(A) - 5, HYDERABAD 4) THE PR. CIT - 5, HYDERABAD 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE