Sairama Krishnam Raju Chiluvuri , Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1) , Hyderabad

ITA 66/Hyd/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6623 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 08-04-2021
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBRAMANYAM TOTA
• Assessee Lawyers: B SHANTHI KUMAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Additional evidence; Set aside
• Section: 80C; 143(1); 143(2); 144; 2

Judgement Text

ITA NO 66 OF 2020 SAIRAMA KRISHAN RAJU CHILUVURI H YDERABAD PAGE 1 OF 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD SMC BENCH, HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.66/HYD/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SAIRAMA KRISHNAM RAJU CHILUVURI, HYDERABAD PAN:AGMPC9469K VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-12 (1) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI B. SHANTHI KUMAR REVENUE BY : SRI SUBRAMANYAM TOTA, DR DATE OF HEARING: 08/04/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15/04/2021 ORDER THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y 2010-11 AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-8, HYDERABAD, DATED 21.10. 2019. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN DIVIDUAL HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y 2010-11 ON 6.4.2011 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,64,480/-. THE RETURN WAS INITIALLY PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. LATER ON, TO EXAMI NE THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE INTO HIS SAVI NGS BANK A/C, HIS CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND N OTICES U/S 143(1) AND 143(2) WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. SINC E NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CO MPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 BASED ON THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HE ACCORDINGLY MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.36,18,484/- TOWA RDS THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SHARE TRADING AND RS.70,1 20/- BY MAKING A DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80C OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND TH E ASSESSEE IS IN ITA NO 66 OF 2020 SAIRAMA KRISHAN RAJU CHILUVURI H YDERABAD PAGE 2 OF 4 SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THE FO LLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.33,83,884/-. 2. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE BANK STATEME NTS BASING ON WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION . 3. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN THE REASON FOR NOT CONSIDERING THE BANK STATEMENT ON WHICH ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED WHILE MAKING ADDITION. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND FILED THE RELEVANT MATERI AL BEFORE THE CIT (A) AND THE CIT (A) HAD CALLED FOR A REMAND REP ORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. BASED ON THE REMARKS OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURN ISH ANY MORE DETAILS, THE CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER . HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOW READY TO SUBMIT ALL THE RE LEVANT MATERIAL BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF THE CASH DEPOSITS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND PRAYED FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. HE ALSO PLEADED TH AT THE CASS SELECTION WAS FOR LIMITED PURPOSE OF EXAMINING THE CASH DEPOSITS AGGREGATING TO RS.36,18,484/- WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXCEEDED HIS JURISDICTION AND MADE AN ADDITION ON A N ISSUE WHICH WAS NOT THE REASON FOR SELECTION OF HIS RETURN OF INCOME UNDER CASS. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ADDITION CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED AND HAS TO BE SET ASIDE. 4. THE LEARNED DR, HOWEVER, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT A CA SE OF LIMITED SCRUTINY, BUT IT IS THE CASE OF THE RETURN OF INCOM E BEING PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAD ITA NO 66 OF 2020 SAIRAMA KRISHAN RAJU CHILUVURI H YDERABAD PAGE 3 OF 4 THE JURISDICTION TO GO INTO ALL ASPECTS OF THE RETU RN OF INCOME AND TO MAKE THE ADDITION WHERE HE IS NOT SATISFIED ABOU T THE SOURCE OF INCOME. HE SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS G IVEN AMPLE OPPORTUNITY, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY MAT ERIAL. THEREFORE, ADDITION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT ( A). 5. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD, I FIND THAT BOTH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) ARE EX-PARTE THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY MATERIAL EVEN DURI NG THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HO WEVER, ONLY TO GIVE THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY, I DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER FOR DENOVO CONSIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO M ENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE GIVEN A FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF H EARING. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH APRIL, 2021. SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 15 TH APRIL, 2021. VINODAN/SPS ITA NO 66 OF 2020 SAIRAMA KRISHAN RAJU CHILUVURI H YDERABAD PAGE 4 OF 4 COPY TO: S.NO ADDRESSES 1 SRI CHILUVURI SRIRAMA KRISHNAM RAJU, FLAT NO.2B M YTHRI NILAYAM, PLOT NO.36, MIG II, K.P.H.B COLONY, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABA D 500072 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER W ARD 12(1) HYDERABAD 3 CIT (A)- 8, HYDERABAD 4 PR. CIT 1, HYDERABAD 5 DR, ITAT HYDERABAD BENCHES 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER