Ramulu Gouri , Ranga Reddy V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vikarabad

ITA 520/Hyd/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7983 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 22-09-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y V S T SAI
• Keywords: Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 153C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD ‘ B ‘ BENCH, HYDERABAD. BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) ITA No.520/Hyd/2020 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Shri Ramulu Gouri, Saipur Village, R.R. District. PAN APXPG 5058A Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1,Vikarabad. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Mohd. Afzal (A.R.) Respondent By : Shri Y V S T Sai (D.R.) Date of Hearing : 20.10.2021. Date of Pronouncement : 23.11.2021. O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for Asst. Year 2012-13 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Hyderabad’s order dt.28.02.2020 passed in case No.10445/2018-19/CIT(A)-2 in proceedings under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). 2 ITA No.520/Hyd/2020 2. We notice at the outset that assessee's instant appeal suffers from 143 days delay in filing. Learned counsel submitted that due to the outbreak of pandemic covid 19 unable to get the documents from the department which caused the impugned delay in filing of the instant appeal. Case law Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, 1987 AIR 1353 (SC) and University of Delhi Vs. Union of India, Civil Appeal No.9488 & 9489/2019 dated 17 th Dec., 2019, hold that such a delay; supported by cogent reasons, deserves to be condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that assessee's impugned delay of one hundred and fortythree days is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Case is now taken up for adjudication on merits therefore. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 3. We come to the first and foremost issue of correctness of the impugned 153C assessment framed on 28.12.2017 for want of a valid satisfaction note. 4. There is no dispute between the parties that the instant lis has arisen from the departmental search action dt.25.07.2013 carried out in the business premises of M/s. Arihant Educational Society running various educational institutions. The departmental authorities found/seized the alleged incriminating material 3 ITA No.520/Hyd/2020 indicating the assessee to have paid an amount of Rs.9,50,000 representing cash donation/capitation payment to the foregoing educational institutions for the purpose of getting admission of her daughter; as unexplained. 5. We now come to the clinching issue as to whether the instant lis involves a valid section 153C satisfaction note or not. There is further no quarrel that the Assessing Officer in case of the searched assessee i.e. M/s. Arihant group and the third person i.e. the assessee herein are different. The former Assessing Officer i.e. DCIT, Central Circle 2(2), Hyderabad appears to have recorded his impugned satisfaction on 19.12.2016 in case of 57 third parties (assessee at Sl.No.45) that the incriminating material indicating payment of donation / capitation fees i.e. “A/CAIMS/04” in fact “belongs to the respective assessees”. He therefore sent the relevant records to the assessee's Assessing Officer i.e. ITO, Ward 1, Vikarabad; who in turn, recorded his satisfaction that foregoing seized documents only “relate to Sri G. Ramulu” as per page 2 in the assessment order dt.28.12.2017 before us. It is at this stage that we are of the opinion that the former Assessing Officer had erred in law and on facts in terming the seized document as “belonging to the assessee” for want of ownership sense missing therein in light of Vijaybai M Chandrani Vs. CIT 333 ITR 436 (Guj); CWT Vs. Viswanath 103 ITR 530 and Late Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan VS. CIT 162 ITR 888 (SC). Learned departmental 4 ITA No.520/Hyd/2020 representative could not dispute the clinching factual position that the seized document “A/CAIMS/04” could not have been held to be helping to the assessee in any manner; whatsoever. We thus quash the impugned assessment for this precise reason alone. All other pleadings on merits are rendered academic. 6. This assessee's appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd Nov., 2021. Sd/- Sd/- (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (S.S. GODARA) Accountant Member Judicial Member Hyderabad, Dt. 23.11.2021. * Reddy gp Copy to : 1. Shri Ramulu Gouri, 2-2-24,Saipur Vuillage, Rangareddy District-501 141 2. Income Tax Officer,Ward 1, Vikarabad. 3. Pr. C I T-2, Hyderabad. 4. CIT(Appeals)-2, Hyderabad. 5. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 6. Guard File. By Order Sr. Pvt. Secretary, ITAT, Hyderabad.