S. Ravi Prakash, Tirupathi V. ACIT, Central Circle, Tirupathi

ITA 667/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 66176 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-07-2011
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V V RAMANA RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 667/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 M/S S. RAVI PRAKASH, APPELLANT HYDERABAD (PAN AJDPR9371H)) VS. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RESPONDE NT CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. RAMA RAO REVENUE BY : SHRI V.V. RAMANA RAO DATE OF HEARING : 02/08/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24/08/ 2012 ORDER PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J.M.: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-VII, HYDERABAD DATED 12/01/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE ASSESSEE FILED PETITION REQUESTING FOR CONDO NATION OF DELAY OF 19 DAYS. WE ARE CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANA TION GIVEN IN THE AFFIDAVIT BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DELAY IS NOT AN INTENTIONAL ONE AND THEREFORE WE CONDONE THE SAME. 2 ITA NO. 667/HYD/2011 M/S S. RAVI PRAKASH 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 CONDU CTED IN THE CASE OF SRI K.C.REDDAPPA NAIDU ON 27.09.2007. CONS EQUENTLY, THE APPELLANTS CASE WAS NOTIFIED TO THE ACIT, CENT RAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI. THE ASSESSEE FILED IT RETURN IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED TO HIM. THE AO PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S.153C OF THE IT ACT, 1961 BY DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.19, 67,710 AGAINST THE INCOME ADMITTED AT RS.4,53,410 BY MAKIN G CERTAIN ADDITIONS. THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.2,27,796/ - WHICH IS A RECEIPT FROM THE FIRM WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS A PAR TNER. THE CIT(A), ON APPEAL HELD THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED WITH REGARD TO THE CREDITS OF RS.2,27,796/- IS NOT BASED ON REL EVANT EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE T HAT HE HAS RECEIVED CREDITS FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRM. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF DETAILS IN THIS REGARD THE CIT(A) SUSTAI NED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY AO. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED A COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME AND COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME FOR THE AY 2008-09 VIDE PAGES 5 TO 10 OF PAPER BOOK ALONG WITH ENCLOSU RES IN RESPECT OF SRI VIGNESH CONSTRUCTIONS, IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER. FROM PAGE 10 OF PAPER BOOK, WE FIND THAT T HE AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE FIRM, HE NCE, WE ALLOW THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE. 3 ITA NO. 667/HYD/2011 M/S S. RAVI PRAKASH 6. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO ADDI TION OF RS.11,40,000/- WHICH IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN LOANS T AKEN FROM THE FOLLOWING PERSONS: RS.3,00,000 FROM SRI S SUDHAKAR CHETTY RS.2,40,000 FROM SRI P VENKAT RAO RS.2,00,000 FROM SRI I SIVA PRASAD AND RS.4,00,000 FROM SRI S M SIVA PRAKASH 7. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT( A) THAT ALL THE PERSONS ARE HAVING SUFFICIENT SOURCE OF INC OME TO GIVE LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THE AO HAS WRONGLY TREATED THE LOAN AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME U/S68 OF THE ACT. T HE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNTS AND BANK PAS S BOOK WITH RESPECT OF SRI S SUDHAKAR CHETTY AND SRI P VENKAT R AO HAD NOT BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT TH E LOANS RECEIVED BY THE TWO PERSONS ARE THROUGH BANKING CHA NNEL. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THERE IS INCONSISTENCY IN ASSESSEE S EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO LOAN OF RS. 4,00,000/- F ROM SHRI S.M. SIVA PRAKASH. FURTHER, THE COPY OF BANK PASSBO OKS OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE LOAN TAKEN FORM SHRI SIVA PRASAD AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,00,000/-. HENCE, THE CIT( A) HELD THAT THE EXPLANATION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY VALID EVID ENCES. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS.11,40,000/- WAS CONFI RMED BY THE CIT(A). AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS ON APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. THE LD COUNSEL, SRI S RAMA RAO FILED THE CONFIRM ATION LETTER FROM SRI S SUDHAKAR CHETTY AND SRI P VENKAT RAO IN SUPPORT OF LOANS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AT PAGE 11 T O 16 OF THE 4 ITA NO. 667/HYD/2011 M/S S. RAVI PRAKASH PAPER BOOK. THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO SAID THAT HE SHAL L PRODUCE THE BANK ACCOUNT AND PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITW ORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE ABOVE LOANS. WITH RESPECT TO THE LOANS TAKEN FROM SHRI I. SIVA PRASAD FOR RS. 2,00,000/-, CONFIRMATION LETTER WAS FILED AT PAGE 13 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE STATED THAT THE CONFIRMATION WITH RESPECT TO RS. 4,00,000/ - GIVEN BY SHRI S.M. RAVI PRAKASH TO THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY BEEN FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FILED COPY OF THE SAME BEFORE US. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD AS WELL AS GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW . IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE, AS DESIRED, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO TO PERUSE THE EVIDENCES AND DECIDE THE I SSUE OF ADDITION OF RS.11,40,000/- IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW A FTER PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE . WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24/08/2012. SD/- SD/- (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R HYDERABAD, DATED:24 TH AUGUST, 2012. KV 5 ITA NO. 667/HYD/2011 M/S S. RAVI PRAKASH COPY TO:- 1) M/S S. RAVI PRAKASH, 18-2-66, KORLAGUNTA, TIRUPATHI. 2) ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HYDERABAD 3) THE CIT (A)-VII, HYDERABAD 4) THE CIT(CENTRAL), HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDERABAD.