Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2434 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
7 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
15-11-2017
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
B
Assessment Year
1995-1996
Appeal Filed On
10-04-2017
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B (SMC), HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. ASST. YEAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT 655/HYD/17 1993-94 P. CHANDRAMMA, L/R. OF LATE S. PRASANGI RAO, GHATKESAR [PAN: AJQPP4075M] THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD 656/HYD/17 1994-95 657/HYD/17 1995-96 FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI S. RAMA RAO, AR FOR REVENUE : SHRI H. PHANI RAJU, DR DATE OF HEARING : 08-11-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15-11-2017 O R D E R THESE THREE APPEALS ARE BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE COMMO N ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-4, HYDERABAD, DATED 20-01-2017, FOR THE AYS. 1993-94, 1994-95 & 199 5-96. 2. THE GROUNDS IN ALL YEARS ARE SIMILAR EXCEPT THE AM OUNTS INVOLVED. FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION THE GROUNDS RAI SED BY ASSESSEE IN AY. 1993-94 WERE EXTRACTED FOR THE SAKE OF RECORD AND FACTS OF THAT YEAR ARE CONSIDERED HEREIN AFTER: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. I.T.A. NOS. 655, 656 & 657/HYD/2017 :- 2 - : 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT PRODUCE ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE A FTER THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT TO THE FILE OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN EXPLANATIONS SUBMITTED. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THE INFORMATION GATHERED BY THE ACB AUTHORITIE S DURING THE COURSE OF INVESTIGATIONS CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR MAKING ANY A DDITION. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. A) UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTI FICATES - RS.10,500/- B) UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN INDIRA VIKAS PATRAS - RS.1,16,000 C) KISAN VIKAS PATRAS RS. 40,500/- D) UTI CERTIFICATES - RS. 1,25,000/- E) MUTUAL FUNDS - RS.38,000/- F) BALANCE IN BANK ACCOUNT OF APPELLANT'S WIFE AND DAUGHTER -RS.49,192/-. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234B RECKONING THE PERIOD FROM 1 ST APRIL OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR TILL THE DATE OF THE ORDER. 7. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME O F HEARING. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, LATE S. PRASANGI RAO WAS WORKING AS A CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, A.P.S.E.B. HE PASSED AWAY ON 01 -09-2003 AND HIS WIFE DR. P. CHANDRAMMA IS REPRESENTING HER HUSBA ND IN ALL THE PROCEEDINGS. 3.1. THE ACB AUTHORITIES CONDUCTED SEARCH AT THE PREMISE S OF LATE S.PRASANGI RAO ON 13-05-1996. LATER, THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES ALSO ISSUED A NOTICE. THE AUTHORITIES FOUND SOME OF THE DOCUMENTS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS AT THE PREMISES. THE ACB AUTHORITIE S CONSIDERED THE AGGREGATE OF THE ASSETS BELONGING TO TH E INDIVIDUAL, HIS WIFE, CHILDREN, ETC., AND ALSO THE VALUE OF THE D EPOSITS BELONGING I.T.A. NOS. 655, 656 & 657/HYD/2017 :- 3 - : TO VARIOUS OTHERS KEPT WITH THE ASSESSEE'S FATHER MR. DAV ID. BASED ON THE INFORMATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) ORIGINA LLY COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 30-03-2000 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOM E AT RS. 4,80,430/- AS AGAINST THE INCOME ADMITTED IN THE REVISE D RETURN OF INCOME OF RS. L,06,240/- THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AP PEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), WHO DISMISSED THE APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE CARRI ED THE MATTER FURTHER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT, HYDERABAD. IT WAS S UBMITTED THAT THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS LAUNCHED BY THE ACB AUTHO RITIES BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPE AND ACB C ASES WAS ABATED AS SRI S. PRASANGI RAO PASSED AWAY. THEREFOR E, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS THAT HAD TAKEN PLACE BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AND THE INFORMATION GATHERED BY THE ACB AUTHORITIES SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDER ED FOR ASSESSMENT. AS THE AO IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER RELIED ON THE INFORMATION GATHERED BY THE ACB AUTHORITIES AND NOT B ASED ON THE STATEMENTS ETC., RECORDED BY THE AO DURING THE COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ITAT SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO. THE AO ISSUED NOTICES U/S 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT [ACT] AND THEREAFTER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE SAM E LINES AS WAS DONE IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. HE COMPUTED THE SA ME TOTAL INCOME AS WAS DONE EARLIER OF RS.4,85,436/-. WHILE DOING SO, HE ADDED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS.3,79,192/- AS WAS DONE IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT. THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,79,L92/- REPR ESENTS THE FOLLOWING: I.T.A. NOS. 655, 656 & 657/HYD/2017 :- 4 - : RS. A) NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES 10,500 B) INDIRA VIKAS PATRAS 1,16,000 C) KISAN VIKAS PATRAS 40,500 D) UTI CERTIFICATES 1,25,000 E) MUTUAL FUNDS 38,000 F) BALANCE IN BANK A/C OF ASSESSEES WIFE AND DAUGHTERS 49,192 TOTAL: 3,79,192 THE AO DID NOT CONSIDER ANY EXPLANATIONS SUBMITTED AND DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 4,85,436/-. 4. SINCE AO REPEATED THE ADDITIONS WITHOUT EXAMINING TH E ISSUES, AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE APPEAL B EFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO IN THE COMMON ORDER HAS DECIDED THE SA ME AS UNDER: 4. THE CASE WAS SET ASIDE BY THE HON'BLE ITAT MAIN LY TO GIVE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE 'TO PRODUCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE FRESH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE BEFORE THE CRIMINAL COURT IN THE CONTEXT OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDIN GS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, WHICH MAY BE CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WH ILE REFRAMING THE ASSESSMENTS.' THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE COMPLETI NG THE ASSESSMENT ON 29.12.2008 GAVE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESS EE AND ASSESSEE'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED AND THE CASE WAS DISCUSSED AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE AO. AS PER THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER, THE AR OR THE APPELLANT HAD NOT FILED A SINGLE ADDITION AL DOCUMENT WHICH HE DESIRES TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE AO TO DEVIATE FROM THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE EARLIER ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY CONSIDERING THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT OR DER, VERIFYING THE DETAILS AND ANALYZING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.3,79,192/-, RS.5, 09,690/- & RS.2,66,686/- RESPECTIVELY FOR THE A.YS. 1993-94, 1 994-95 & 1995-96. TO DEVIATE OR TO DELETE THESE ADDITIONS, THE APPELLANT OR THE AR HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY FURTHER INFORMATION BEFORE ME. HENCE, IT SEEMS THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT HAVING ANY RELEVANT MATERIAL TO CO UNTER THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONFIRMED. 5. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF LD. COUNSEL THAT ASSESSEE HA D FILED DETAILED SUBMISSIONS NOT ONLY BEFORE THE AO BUT ALSO BE FORE THE I.T.A. NOS. 655, 656 & 657/HYD/2017 :- 5 - : LD.CIT(A) WHICH WERE NOT CONSIDERED. IT WAS FURTHER S UBMITTED THAT THE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED IN FEBRUARY, 2009 AND T HE JURISDICTION HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM CIT(A)-2 TO CI T(A)-4 AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE CIT(A)-2 HAS NOT BEEN CONSID ERED. IT WAS PRAYED THAT THE APPEALS CAN BE RESTORED TO LD.CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE LD.DRS OBJECTIONS, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE DETAILED SUBMIS SIONS MADE. THERE IS MERIT IN ASSESSEE CONTENTIONS THAT THE DOCUMENTS AND SUBMISSIONS MADE ARE NOT CONSIDERED BY AUTHORITIES , AS THE PAPER BOOK FILED HAS NOT BEEN REFLECTED IN THE ORDER O F CIT(A) AND THE ISSUES HAVE NOT BEEN EXAMINED AT ALL. THEREFORE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN DUE OPPORTUNIT Y BEFORE LD.CIT(A) TO EXPLAIN THE ISSUES. LD.CIT(A) SHOULD D ISCUSS EACH OF THE ADDITIONS ON ITS MERITS AND SHOULD NOT REJECT WITHOUT CONSIDERATION. THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS HEREBY SET ASIDE AND THE APPEALS ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LD.C IT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION ON FACTS AND LAW. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH NOVEMBER, 2017 SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 15 TH NOVEMBER, 2017 TNMM I.T.A. NOS. 655, 656 & 657/HYD/2017 :- 6 - : COPY TO : 1. P. CHANDRAMMA, L/R. OF LATE S. PRASANGI RAO, C/O . SRI S. RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO. 102, SHRIYAS ELEGANCE, 3-6-643, STREET NO. 9, HIMAYAT NAGAR, HYDERABAD. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD. 3. CIT (APPEALS)-4, HYDERABAD. 4. PR.CIT-4, HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.
Mehul