Kalyan Chakravarthy Konchada , Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(2), Hyderabad

ITA 655/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5925 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NILANJAN DEY
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 68; 69; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH SMC, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.655/HYD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014 - 15 KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY KONCHADA, HYDERABAD. PAN: AMDPK 9134 G VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI I. KAMA SASTRY REVENUE BY: SRI NILANJAN DEY, DR DATE OF HEARING: 22/07/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23 /09/2019 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) - 1, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO.0259/2016 - 17/ITO - 12(2)/CIT(A) - 1/HYD/2018 - 19 DATED 22/02/2019 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144 & U/S. 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2014 - 15. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL: - 1. THE A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 17,74,959/ - TOWARDS INCOME FROM TRADING IN FORWARD EXCHANGE AND THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. 2. THE LD. A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER - VI - A OF RS. 1,35,000/ - AND THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. 2 3. THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ENHANCING THE ASSESSMENT BY RS. 177,30,49,801/ - BY TREATING THE ENTIRE GROSS VALUE OF TRANSACTIONS IN FORWARD CONTRACTS AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS U/S. 69 OF THE ACT MORESO WHEN THE NOTICE OF ENHANCEMENT IS NOT VALIDLY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT VAL ID AS IT IS PASSED BEYOND THIRTY DAYS FROM THE LAST DEEMED DATE OF HEARING WHICH IS 31/01/2019 WHEREAS THE ORDER IS PASSED ON 06/03/2019. 5. ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVE S LEAVE TO ADD, TO ALTER, AMEND, MODIFY OR DELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL . 3. AT THE OUTSET, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN ADDITION WAS MADE FO R RS. 17,74,959/ - BEING 0.01% OF THE SHARE TRANSACTION AS HIS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S. 68 OF THE ACT AND AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,35,000/ - DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER - VI - A OF THE IT ACT, 1961. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. A.O. HAD ALSO PASSED AN EX - PRATE ORDER IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD . THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN POSSESSION OF AL L THE REQUISITE MATERIALS TO ARGUE HIS CASE AND THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION THEREBY PROVIDING THE ASSESSEE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 3 4. LEARNED DR HAS STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND ARGUED BY STATING THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES WERE PROVIDED BY BOTH THE A.O. AS WELL AS CIT (A). HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS GROSSLY FAILED TO REPRESENT HIS CASE . IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. ON PERUSAL OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS APPARENT THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES WERE PROV IDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BY POSTING THE CASE FOR HEARING NUMBER OF TIMES. IT IS ALSO APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COOPERATED BEFORE THE LD A.O. AS WELL DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THIS SITUATION, I DO NOT FIND MUCH STRENGTH IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE PRAYER OF THE LD. AR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN POSSESSION OF ALL THE MATERIALS AND EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO OBTAIN FAVOURABLE ORDER FROM THE REVENUE WHICH WAS NOT AVAILABLE DURING E ARLIER OCCASIONS DUE TO MISPLACEMENT , IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE I HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. A.O. FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION THEREBY OFFERING THE ASSESSEE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS CASE BEFORE THEM . I ALSO MAKE IT CLEAR TH AT IF THE ASSESSEE DO NOT PROMPTLY COOPERATE BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES, THEY ARE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH MERIT AND LAW BASED ON THE MATERIAL BEFORE THEM. 4 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD SEPTEMBER, 2019. SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 23 R D SEPTEMBER , 2019 OKK COPY TO: - 1) KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY KONCHADA , FLAT NO. 404, NJM AJANTA ENCLAVE, KATHERA STREET, NEAR BLUE DART COURIER OFFICE, SRIKAKULAM. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12(2 ), HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT(A) - 1, HYDERABAD 4) THE PR. CIT - 1, HYDERABAD 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE