Siddatapu Ramana, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-12(4), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 65/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6474 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 12-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: U MINICHANDRAN
• Assessee Lawyers: P RAVI SESHAGIRI RAO
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3); 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B (SMC) : HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.65/HYD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 MR. SIDDATAPU RAMANA, HYDERABAD 500 036. PAN AWAPS1023R VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-12(4) HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : MR. P. RAVISESHAGIRI RAO FOR REVENUE : SMT. U. MINICHANDRAN DATE OF HEARING : 28.06.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.06.2016 ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-2, HYDERABAD DATED 13.10.2014 FOR TH E A.Y. 2010- 2011. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THE APPEAL : 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON F ACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DECIDING THE APPEAL EX-PAR TE WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLA NT HEREIN. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF TH E A.O. IN TREATING THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF RS.25, 96,540 AS THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE I.T. ACT. 2 ITA.NO.65/HYD/2015 MR. SIDDATAPU RAMANA, HYDERABAD. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF TH E A.O. IN DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VI-A OF THE I.T. ACT OF RS.1,02,485. 5. ANY OTHER GROUND OR GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT TH E TIME OF HEARING. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.07.201 1 FOR THE A.Y. 2010-2011 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,32,940 A ND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.55,000. AS PER THE NORMS PRESCRIBED UNDER CASS, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED F OR SCRUTINY AND A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED CALLIN G FOR CLARIFICATION. IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE ASSESSEE AP PEARED BEFORE THE A.O. ON 18.03.2013 BUT COULD NOT FILE ANY EXPLA NATION. BASING ON THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE A.O . MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.25,96,540 TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CASH C REDITS AND RS.1,02,485 TOWARDS CHAPTER-VI-A DEDUCTIONS. THE A. O. PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, 1 961 DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.29,31, 965. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THOUGH SUFFICIENT OPPORTUN ITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH REQUIRED INFORMATION, TH E ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE SAME BEFORE THE A.O. AND THER EFORE, HE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A.O. BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 6.1. DESPITE THE FACT THAT REPEATED NOTICES WERE I SSUED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS DURING APP EAL PROCEEDINGS, THERE IS NO RESPONSE FROM THE APPELLAN T, NOR ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE. THEREFORE, IT IS 3 ITA.NO.65/HYD/2015 MR. SIDDATAPU RAMANA, HYDERABAD. CONSTRUED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NO EVIDENCE TO SUB STANTIATE HIS GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 6.2. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MOTOR GENERAL FINANCE LTD., (254 ITR 449), THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE/DOCUMENT, AN ADVERSE INFERENCE IN TERMS OF SECTION 114 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT CAN BE DRAWN TO THE EFFECT, HAD THOSE DOCUMENTS BEEN PRODUCED, THE SAME WOULD HAVE GONE AGAINST THE INTEREST OF THE ASSESSE E AND THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MOT ILAL PADAMPAT UDYOG LTD., VS. CIT (817 ITR 515) HELD THA T WHERE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ADDUCE PROOF WITH REG ARD TO THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS, ALTHOUGH IT HAS BEEN GIVEN AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO, THE ADDITION ON THAT COULD WAS JUSTIFIED. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE A SSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE ME. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARIN G OF THE APPEAL, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED PAPER BOOK CONTENDING INTER ALIA THAT THE DOCUMENTS MENTIONED AT SL.NO.13 TO 53 ARE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH HAS NOT BEE N FILED EITHER BEFORE THE CIT(A) OR A.O. AND REQUESTED FOR ADMISSI ON OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS IT IS NECESSARY FOR DECIDING THE APPEAL. IN THE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENC E THE REASONS ARE STATED AS UNDER : THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED WITHOUT PROVIDING PRO PER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. THE NOTICES STATED TO HAVE BEEN 4 ITA.NO.65/HYD/2015 MR. SIDDATAPU RAMANA, HYDERABAD. SENT BY THE A.O. WERE NOT RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT . THE APPELLANT SHIFTED HIS RESIDENCE FROM DOOR NO.1-3- 291/A/4/4, NALLAKUNTA, HYDERABAD TO FLAT NO.302, VE NKATA SAI RESIDENCY, SBI OFFICERS COLONY, MOOSARAMBAGH, HYDERABAD. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBMIT NECESSARY INFORMATION/DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE A .O. WHEN THE LD. CIT(A) POSTED THE APPEAL FOR HEARING O N 25.6.2014 AND 5.9.2014, THE APPELLANT SOUGHT ADJOUR NMENT. THE CASE WAS LAST POSTED ON 26.9.2014 AND THE APPEA L WAS DECIDED EX-PARTE VIDE ORDER DATED 13.10.2014. THERE FORE, THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE IN SUP PORT OF THE CLAIMS MADE. 4. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONGLY OPPOSE D FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND PLEADED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AS WELL AS ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE, I FIND THAT ADMITTEDLY, ASS ESSEE HAD REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FURNISHING THE DOCUMENTS A S SOUGHT FOR BY THE DEPARTMENT. HOWEVER, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CERTAIN DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHICH ARE NOT FILED B EFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, IN ORDER TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUS TICE, I SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WITH A DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH BY GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. I T IS NEEDLESS TO MENTION HEREIN THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD PRODUCE ALL THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE A.O. WHICH ARE FILED BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL, 5 ITA.NO.65/HYD/2015 MR. SIDDATAPU RAMANA, HYDERABAD. FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUES. ACCORDINGLY, THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.06.2016 SD/- (SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 28 TH JUNE, 2016 VBP/- COPY TO 1. MR. SIDDATAPU RAMANA, HYDERABAD. C/O. SRI S. RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO.102, SHRIYAS ELEGANCE, 3-6-643, STREET NO.9, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD 500 029. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12 ( 4 ),HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(A) - II , HYDERABAD . 4. CIT - 1 , HYDERABAD. 5 . D.R. ITAT B (SMC)BENCH, HYDERABAD 6 . GUARD FILE