V.Suseela, Proddatur V. ACIT, Tirupathi

ITA 499/HYD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61953 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-02-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 24-03-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Search and seizure
• Section: 143(3); 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SL. NO. ITA NO. A.Y. APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. 482/HYD/2008 2002-03 SHRI V.S.K. SATYANARAYANA PRODDUTUR; PAN: AAQPV2898D ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI 2. 483/HYD/2008 2003-04 -DO- -DO- 3. 484/HYD/2008 2005-06 -DO- -DO- 4. 485/HYD/2008 2000-01 SHRI V. SATYANARAYANA PRODDUTUR; PAN: AAQPV2902C -DO- 5. 487/HYD/2008 2001-02 -DO- -DO- 6. 488/HYD/2008 2002-03 -DO- -DO- 7. 489/HYD/2008 2003-04 -DO- -DO- 8. 515/HYD/2008 2004-05 -DO- -DO- 9. 486/HYD/2008 2000-01 M/S. V. SATYANARAYANA (HUF) PRODDUTUR; PAN: AABHV0682A -DO- 10. 490/HYD/2008 2004-05 -DO- -DO- 11. 491/HYD/2008 2005-06 -DO- -DO- 12. 498/HYD/2008 2004-05 SMT. V. SUSEELA PRODUTUR; PAN: APQPV2899C -DO- 13. 499/HYD/2008 2005-06 -DO- -DO- ASSESSEE BY: SHRI S. RAMA RAO REVENUE BY: SHRI V. SRINIVAS DATE OF HEARING: 04.07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18.07.2012 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: ALL THE ABOVE APPEALS BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE CIT(A)-I, HYDERABAD DATED 1 7 TH DECEMBER, 2007 FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT 2000-01 TO 2005-06. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARISE FROM THE ABOVE APPEALS, THEY ARE CLUBBED TOGETHER, HEARD TOG ETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE . 2. THERE WAS A SEARCH ACTION IN THESE CASES ON 14.7.20 04 U/S. 132 OF INCOME OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THEREAFTER ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 153A/153C OF THE ACT. AGAINST THIS ASSESSEES WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MERIT AND CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEES ARE IN APPEAL BE FORE US. BEFORE US, BESIDES OTHER GROUNDS, THE ASSESSEES RAISED A LEGAL GROUND IN THESE APPEALS, STATING THAT ASSESSMENT FRAMED IN THESE CASES IS BAD IN LAW AS T HERE WAS NO SEIZED MATERIAL ITA NO. 482/HYD/2008 & ORS SHRI V.S.K. SATYANARAYANA ====================== 2 EMANATING FROM THE SEARCH ACTION U/S. 132 OF THE AC T. FOR CLARITY, THE COMMON LEGAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REPRODUCED H EREUNDER: THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THEY WE RE NOT MADE WITH REFERENCE TO ANY SEIZED MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE C OURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS.' 3. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND , WHICH IS A LEGAL GROUND, WILL GO TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND THIS GROUND WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES INADVERTENTLY. BEING SO, PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. VS. CIT (229 ITR 383), THE LEARNED AR PRAYED TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND AND ADJUDICATE THE SAME. 4. THE DR EXPRESSED NO OBJECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ADDI TIONAL GROUND TO THE FILE OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FOR CONSIDERATION. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. AS ARGUED BY THE LEARNED AR, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IS A LEGAL GROUND WHICH WILL GO TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND THE AR EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR NOT RAISING THE ABOVE GROUND I.E., ADDITIONAL GROUND BEFORE THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES ON EARLIER OCCASION THAT IT IS AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE ON THE P ART OF THE ASSESSEE AND WE ARE SATISFIED WITH THE REASONS EXPLAINED BY THE LEARNED AR AND IT BEING THE LEGAL GROUND AND APPLYING THE RATIO OF JUDGEMENT OF SUPRE ME COURT (CITED SUPRA) WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND. HOWEVER, AS THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THIS GROUND ON EARLIER OCCASION, WE SET ASIDE THIS GROUND TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERATION AND DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. AT THIS STAGE WE REFRAIN OURSELVES FROM GOING INTO THE ORIGINAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEES HEREIN. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE RESPECTIVE AS SESSEES ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH JULY, 2012. SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED THE 18 TH JULY, 2012 ITA NO. 482/HYD/2008 & ORS SHRI V.S.K. SATYANARAYANA ====================== 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI V.S.K. SATYANARAYANA, C/O. SRI S. RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO. 103, INDIRADEVI NILAYAM, ST. NO. 7, HIMAYATHNAGAR, HYDERABAD. 2. SHRI V. SATYANARAYANA, C/O. SRI S. RAMA RAO, ADV OCATE, FLAT NO. 103, INDIRADEVI NILAYAM, ST. NO. 7, HIMAYATHNAGAR, HYDER ABAD. 3. M/S. V. SATYANARAYANA (HUF), C/O. SRI S. RAMA RA O, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO. 103, INDIRADEVI NILAYAM, ST. NO. 7, HIMAYATHNAG AR, HYDERABAD. 4. SMT. V.SUSEELA, C/O. SRI S. RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO. 103, INDIRADEVI NILAYAM, ST. NO. 7, HIMAYATHNAGAR, HYDER ABAD. 5. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CI RCLE, TIRUPATI. 6. THE CIT(A)-I, HYDERABAD 7. THE CIT (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD. 8. THE DR A BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD. TPRAO