Jitendrababu Vasantha, Hyderabad V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax , Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

ITA 645/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7156 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-03-2019
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEEJU GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: P MURALI MOHAN RAO
• Keywords: Salary income; Additional evidence; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. A.Y. APPELLANT RESPONDENT 645/HYD/18 2011-12 JITENDRABABU VASANTHA, HYDERABAD [PAN: ABAPV7413R] DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD 646/HYD/18 2012-13 ITO, WARD-17(3), HYDERABAD FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI P. MURALI MOHAN RAO, AR FOR REVENUE : SMT. NEEJU GUPTA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 26-03-2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05-04-2019 O R D E R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. : BOTH ARE ASSESSEES APPEALS FOR THE AYS. 2011-12 & 2012-13 AGAINST THE ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS)-5, HYDERABAD, DATED 09-03-2018 RESPECTIVEL Y. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT, THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, DERIVING INCOME FROM SALARY, HOUSE PROP ERTY AND OTHER SOURCES, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELE VANT ASSESSMENT YEARS. I.T.A. NOS. 645 & 646/HYD/2018 :- 2 -: AY. 2011-12: 3. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143(3) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT [ACT], ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING TWO BANK ACCOUNTS I.E., HDFC BANK AND ICICI BANK AND THAT HE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSITS INTO THE SAME D URING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES FOR THE SAID DEPOSITS. IN REPLY, THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE SAID DEPOSITS WERE SOURCED FROM ASSESSEES FATHER BUT HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARRIVED AT THE PEAK N EGATIVE CASH BALANCE AND BROUGHT IT TO TAX AS UNEXPLAINED CAS H CREDITS. 3.1. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEF ORE THE CIT(A), WHO DECIDED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL EX-PARTE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO APPEAR ON SOME O F THE OCCASIONS AND HAS ALSO FAILED TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS CA LLED FOR. AY.2012-13: 4. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143(3) OF TH E ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WA S IN RECEIPT OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AGAINST WHICH A SSESSEE HAD CLAIMED INTEREST OF RS. 12,43,671/- WITHOUT ANY PRO OF OF THE SAME. HE THEREFORE DISALLOWED THE INTEREST U/S. 24( B) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, HE OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 21,56,200/- INTO HIS ICICI BANK A/C A ND THAT SOURCES OF THE SAME WERE NOT EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE . HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SEVERAL OTHER CASH DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,27,27,000/- AND SINCE THE SOURCES I.T.A. NOS. 645 & 646/HYD/2018 :- 3 -: OF THE SAME WERE ALSO NOT EXPLAINED, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 144 OF THE ACT, BRINGING THE SAME TO TAX. 4.1. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEF ORE THE CIT(A), WHO DECIDED THE APPEAL EX-PARTE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE DETAILS CALLED FOR WITHIN THE TIME PROVIDED BY THE CIT(A). 4.2. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED BOTH THE APPEALS BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A), WHICH ARE DECID ED EX-PARTE THE ASSESSEE. 5. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUES MAY BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DENOVO CONSIDERATION SINCE THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE AY. 2012-13 WAS COMPLETED U/S. 144 OF THE ACT AND FOR THE AY. 2011-12, ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO FILE THE EVIDENCES WHICH COULD BE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND THE CIT(A) WOULD HAVE TO CALL FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ON SUCH ADDITIONAL INCOME. THEREFORE, HE SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENTS OF BOTH THE YEARS MAY BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. LD.DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW, BUT DID NOT SERIOUSLY OPPOSE THE REMAND OF THE CASES TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO RE MAND THE ASSESSEES ASSESSMENTS FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S TO I.T.A. NOS. 645 & 646/HYD/2018 :- 4 -: THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING THE ASSES SEE A FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. THE ASSESSEE SHOULD ALSO CO- OPERATE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY FURNISHING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FOR EARLY COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENTS. 8. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE TREAT ED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH APRIL, 2019 SD/- SD/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMB ER HYDERABAD, DATED 5 TH APRIL, 2019 TNMM I.T.A. NOS. 645 & 646/HYD/2018 :- 5 -: COPY TO : 1. JITENDRABABU VASANTHA, HYDERABAD. C/O. P. MURALI & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 6-3-655/2/3, 1 ST FLOOR, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD. 2. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD. 3. ITO, WARD-17(3), HYDERABAD. 4. CIT (APPEALS)-5, HYDERABAD. 5. PR.CIT-5, HYDERABAD. 6. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 7. GUARD FILE.