Nethi Jagadishwar, Hyderabad, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-8(3), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 53/HYD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7477 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 12-11-2018
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NILANJAN DEY
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 12; 2; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A ', HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 53 / HYD/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 1 1 - 1 2 JAGADISHWAR NETHI, HYDERABAD. PAN AAGPN0311D VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 8(3), HYDERABAD. APPELLANT RESPONDENT A SSESSEE BY: S HRI K.C. DEVDAS RE VENUE BY: SHRI NILANJAN DEY DATE OF HEARING: 12 / 1 1 / 201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09 / 0 1 /201 9 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN , AM: T H IS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) 2 , HYDERABAD, DATED, 31/08/2016 FOR AY 20 1 1 - 1 2 . 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE A SSESSEE , FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2011 - 12 ON 2 8/09/2011 ADMITTING TOTAL LOSS OF RS. ( - ) 19,68,003/ - . SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY BY ISSUING OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) DATED 01/08/2012 AN THE SAME WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 02/08/2012. IN RESPONSE, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE, FILED T HE REQUIRED INFORMATION. BASED ON THE INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT DETERMINING THE ASSESSED INCOME AT RS. 1,40,786/ - AS AGAINST THE ADMITTED LOSS OF RS. 19,68,003/ - , BY MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: 1. CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE ON 4 CARS RS. 4,48,234/ - I.T.A. NO. 53 /HYD/1 7 JAGADISHWAR NETHI 2 2. CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON 4 CARS RS. 5,09,035/ - 3. CLAIM OF LOSS ON SALE OF VEHICLES RS. 1,12,530/ - 4. CLAIM OF TRUCK DRIVERS BATHA RS. 1,98,990/ - 5. INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY RS. 8,40,000/ - . 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND SINCE NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE CIT(A) PASSED EXPARTE ORDER BY OBSERVING THAT THE A O HAS MADE THE ABOVE ADDITIONS TO THE TOTAL INCOME AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE NECESSARY DETAILS, EVIDENCES AND PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE ABOVE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, HE OBSERVED THAT DESPITE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES PROVIDED, NEITHER ASSESSEE NOR AR FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ALSO REBUTTING THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY THE AO. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, HE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE AO IS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITIONS. 4. AGGRIEV ED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: . 1) THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2) THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN DECIDING THE APPEAL EX - PARTE WITHOUT PRO VIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT; 3) THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON FOUR CARS OF RS.5,09,035 / - . 4) THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES ON MAINTENANCE OF CARS OF RS. 4,48,234 / - . 5) THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF BATHA PAID TO THE DRIVERS OF RS.1,98,990 / - WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. I.T.A. NO. 53 /HYD/1 7 JAGADISHWAR NETHI 3 6) THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER IN ESTIMATING THE RENT FOR THE BUILDING AT RS.12,00,000 / - PER ANNUM. 7) ANY OTHER GROUND OR GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 4.1 GROUND NOS. 1 & 7 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND GROUND NO. 2 WAS NOT PRESSED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSES SEE AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 5. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE AO IN AYS 2012 - 13 AND 2013 - 14. THE CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOW ED THE GROUNDS ON THE ISSUES OF DEPRECIATION ON CARS AND EXPENSES ON MAINTENANCE OF CARS (GROUND NOS. 3 & 4) IN 2013 - 14 WHILE ADDITION ON DRIVERS BATHA ( GROUND NO. 5) AND ADDITION ON RENTAL INCOME ( GROUND NO. 6) WERE ALLOWED. IN AY 2012 - 13, THE CIT(A) DELETED O NLY THE ADDITION TOWARDS RENTAL INCOME AND OTHER ADDITIONS WERE UPHELD. THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT APPEALED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF CIT(A) IN AY 2012 - 13 AND 2013 - 14. 5.1 AS THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE IN THE CURRENT AY ARE SIMILAR TO AY 2012 - 13 AND 2013 - 14, WE REMIT THE ISSUES BACK TO THE FILE OF AO WITH A DIRECTION TO VERIFY THE ISSUES PROPERLY AND ADJUDICATE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) IN AYS 2012 - 13 AND 2013 - 14. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO SUBSTA NTIATE HIS CLAIMS BY WAY OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO PROVIDE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE MATTER. I.T.A. NO. 53 /HYD/1 7 JAGADISHWAR NETHI 4 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH JANUARY, 201 9. SD/ - ( P. MADHAVI DEVI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - ( S. RIFAUR RAHMAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 9 TH JANUARY , 201 9. KV COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. NETHI JGADISHWAR, C/O SRI S. RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO. 102, SHRIYAS ELEGANCE, 3 - 6 - 643, STREET NO. 9, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD 500 029. 2 . ITO, WARD 8(3), SIGNATURE TOWERS, OPP. BOTANICAL GARDEN, KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD . 3 . CIT (A) - 2 , HYDERABAD 4. PR. CIT 2 , HYDERABAD 5. THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6. GUARD FILE