Malisetty Sudheer, Nellore V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nellore

ITA 522/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3930 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-02-2020
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D J P ANAND
• Keywords: Salary income

Judgement Text

ITA NO 522 OF 2019 MALISETTY SUDHEER NELLORE. PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A SMC BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.522/HYD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SHRI MALISETTY SUDHEER NELLORE PAN:AHMPM6558Q VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 NELLORE (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SMT. S. SANDHYA REVENUE BY : SRI D.J.P. ANAND, DR DATE OF HEARING: 26/02/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28/02/2020 ORDER THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y 2010-11 AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) TIRUPATI, DATED 25/02/2019 . 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL EARNING SALARY INCOME AND INTEREST INCOM E. AS PER THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT, THE ASSESSE E ALONGWITH ONE MORE PERSON SRI VELAMPALLI RAMA RAO ENTERED INT O AN AGREEMENT OF SALE ON 6.6.2009 FOR PURCHASE OF AN IM MOVABLE PROPERTY ADMEASURING 129.50 ACRES IN ANPALLIPADU (V ), GURUVINDAPAUDI PANCHAYAT, MANOBOLU MANDAL FOR A CON SIDERATION OF RS.5,60,00,000/- AND PAID AN ADVANCE OF RS.15.00 LAKHS ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT. ON VERIFICATION OF THE INFORMATI ON AVAILABLE, THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEES PAN IS NOT AVAILABLE A ND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y 2010-11. THEREFORE, THE AO ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 148. IN RESPO NSE TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER DATED 15.12.2017 STATING THAT, ITA NO 522 OF 2019 MALISETTY SUDHEER NELLORE. PAGE 2 OF 3 THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED ORIGINALLY ON 23.05.2011 MAY BE TREATED AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS WERE RECORDED WHEREIN THE AS SESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF RS.15.00 LAKHS AS UNDER: FROM OWN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT = RS.7.00 LAKHS FROM HIS WIFE SMT.M.SRI LAKSHMI = RS.6.00 LAKHS FROM SRI V.CHENCHU VENKATA RAO = RS.2.00 LAKHS THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE FIRST TWO SOURCES HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDEN CE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CONTENTION. HE ACCORDINGLY MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.13.00 LAKHS. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED A N APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A), WHO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PAPER BOOK CONSISTING OF 42 PAGES WHICH INCLUDES THE RETU RN OF INCOME FILED BY HIM FOR THE A.Y 2010-11 ALONG WITH THE COM PUTATION OF INCOME AND THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.200 9 TO 31.3.2010, THE RETURN OF INCOME OF ASSESSEES WIFE, HER LEDGER A/C AND THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS OF THE ASSESSEES WIFE SRI LAKSHMI AND SHRI V. CHENCHU VENKATA RAO. THE ASSESSEE HAS G IVEN A CERTIFICATE THAT ALL THESE DOCUMENTS WERE FILED BEF ORE THE AO AND THE CIT (A). THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE RELEVANT DOCU MENTS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, NONE OF THEM HAVE EXAMINED T HE SAME AND THE CIT (A) HAS ONLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE B Y THE AO. ITA NO 522 OF 2019 MALISETTY SUDHEER NELLORE. PAGE 3 OF 3 4. THE LEARNED DR WAS ALSO HEARD WHO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED PAPER BOOK BEFORE THE AO ONL Y ON THE LAST DATE I.E. ON THE DATE OF PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 5. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTEDLY FILED THE RELEVANT PAPERS ONLY ON THE LAST DAY ON WHICH THE A SSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED. THEREFORE, OBVIOUSLY, THE AO HAS EITHER NOT NOTICED THE SAME, OR DID NOT LOOK INTO THE SAME WHE N THE ASSESSMENT WAS GETTING TIME BARRED. HOWEVER, THE CI T (A) OUGHT TO HAVE EXAMINED THE SAME WHEN IT WAS FILED BEFORE HIM . SINCE, NONE OF THE AUTHORITIES HAVE VERIFIED THE DOCUMENTS, I D EEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMAND THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WI TH A DIRECTION TO RECONSIDER THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AFT ER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 6 IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2020. SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2020. VINODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1 SHRI MALISETTY SUDHEER, S/O SRI NAGABHUSHANAM, D. NO.19-44A, BALAJI NAGAR, NELLORE 524002 2 ITO WARD-1 DARGAMITTA, NELLORE 524003 3 CIT (A)-TIRUPATI 4 PR. CIT - TIRUPATI 5 THE DR, ITAT HYDERABAD 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER