The ITO, Ward-2(2), Guntur V. Sri Yenumala Jojaiah, Gunturu Distt.

ITA 543/VIZ/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2836 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 04-05-2010
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D S SUNDER SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: C KAMESWARA RAO
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.543/VIZAG/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 ITO WARD-2(2) GUNTUR SRI YENUMALA JOJAIAH GUNTUR (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI C. KAMESWARA RAO, CA ORDER PER SHRI S.K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL , REVISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL WERE FILED, ACCORDING TO WHICH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WAS ASSAILED ON THE GROUND THAT CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RELYING UPON TH E REMAND REPORT GIVEN BY THE A.O., WHEREIN OUT OF 24 LOAN CREDITORS, ONLY 11 CREDITORS WERE EXAMINED AND THEREFORE DELETED THE ADDITIONS. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RE CORD. FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL, WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS INTRODUCED THE C ASH CREDITS BY MAKING THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE TOTAL CREDITORS WERE 24 IN NUMBERS AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT ADDED U/S 68 WAS RS.16,02,200/-. THE CIT(A) CALLED A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ASSESSING OFF ICER EXAMINED THE 11 CREDITORS AT RANDOM AND RECORDED THEIR STATEMENTS A ND ALSO EXAMINED THE EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE LAND HOLDINGS AND HE WAS C ONVINCED WITH THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN RECEIVED FROM 11 PERSONS. RELYING UPON THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE CIT(A) HAS DEL ETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION. NOW THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US WITH THE SUBMISSIONS THAT CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY PLACED A RELIANCE UPON THE REMAND REPORT AND HAS WR ONGLY DELETED ENTIRE ADDITIONS. 2 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED T HAT ASSESSEE HAS PLACED THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT THEREON FROM THE A.O. AND WHEN THE A. O. WAS SATISFIED WITH THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS, CIT(A) HA D DELETED THE ADDITIONS. ONCE THE A.O. HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOANS, THE REVENUE HAS NO MORAL RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE GENUINE NESS OF THE LOANS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CA REFUL PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSE SSEES. WHATEVER EVIDENCE WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A), A REMAND REPORT WAS CA LLED THEREON. IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. WAS SATISFIED WITH THE GENUIN ENESS OF THE LOAN. RELYING UPON THE REMAND REPORT, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDI TIONS. ONCE THE INVESTIGATING AGENCY OR THE A.O. HIMSELF IS SATISFI ED WITH THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS, THE REVENUE HAS NO RIGHT TO CHALLENGE IT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WE THEREFORE, FIND NO MERIT IN THE APPEA L OF THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THE SAME. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7.9.2010 SD/- SD/- (BR BASKARAN) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VG/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM, DATED 7 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 COPY TO 1 ITO, WARD-2(2), GUNTUR 2 YENUMALA JOJAIAH, S/O LATE SAWARAIAH, NEAR BOSE BOM MA CENTRE, 12-79-1, MUTLURU VILLAGE, VATTICHERUKURU MANDAL, GU NTUR DIST. 3 THE CIT, GUNTUR 4 THE CIT(A), GUNTUR 5 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM