Sri P Janaki Rama Raju., Visakhapatnam V. The ACIT, Range-4, Visakhapatnam

ITA 69/VIZ/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2821 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 06-09-2010
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2007
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBRATA SARKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: C V S MURTHY
• Keywords: Agreed addition; Set aside
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

ITA NOS 68& 69/VIZAG/2007 P. JANAKIRAMA RAJU, VISAKH APATNAM PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.68 & 69/VIZAG/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 AND 2004-05 P. JANAKI RAMA RAJU, VISAKHAPATNAM VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-4, VISAKHAPATNAM (APPELLANT) PAN NO:AHGDP 0390 R (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI C.V.S. MURTHY, CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SUBRATA SARKAR, CIT(DR) ORDER PER SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDERS PASSED BY LEARNED CIT, VISAKHAPATNAM U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND T HEY RELATE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05. THE ASSESSEE IS CHALLENG ING THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 263 IN BOTH THE YEARS. SINCE THE ISSUE URGED IN BOTH THE YEARS IS IDENTICAL IN NATURE, THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE DISCUSSED IN BRIEF . THE ASSESSMENT FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS WAS COMPLETED ON 23.12.2005 U/S 14 3(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 BY ACCEPTING THE INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCO ME. HOWEVER, HE MADE AN AGREED ADDITION OF RS.3.00 LAKHS TO THE RETURNED IN COME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 FOR THE REASON THAT THE EXPENSES WERE SUPPO RTED BY SELF MADE VOUCHERS. FOR BOTH THE YEARS, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS CRYP TIC, WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE DETAILS OF EXAMINATION CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED CIT INITIATED REVISION PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE ACT A S, IN HIS OPINION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO EXAMINE VARIOUS ISSUES AS NOT ED BY HIM IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICES. AFTER CONSIDERING THE OBJECTIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LEARNED CIT ITA NOS 68& 69/VIZAG/2007 P. JANAKIRAMA RAJU, VISAKH APATNAM PAGE 2 OF 3 SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS OF BOTH THE YEARS A ND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT DE-NOVO. NOW TH E ASSESSEE IS CHALLENGING THE SAID ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT IN BOTH THE YEARS. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES IN THIS REGARD AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RECORD. THE UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT THE ORDERS PASSED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IN BOTH THE YEARS ARE VERY MUCH CRYPTIC AND NON-SPEAKING ONES. THUS THE ORDERS DO NOT THROW ANY LIGHT OF THE TYPES OF EXAMINATION CARRIED OUT B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN BOTH THE YEARS. AT THE INSTANCE OF THE BENCH, THE LEARN ED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FILED COPIES OF THE ORDER SHEET FROM THE ASSESSME NT FOLDER. THE NOTING MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 READS AS UNDER: 23.12.05 : SHRI M.K.KUMAR C.A APPEARED. CASE HEARD AND DISCUSSED. FURNISHED THE DETAILS CALLED FOR AND BOOKS FOR EXAM INATION SIMILARLY THE NOTING MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 004-05 READS AS UNDER: 23.12.05 SHRI M.K.KUMAR C.A APPEARED WITH BOOKS. FILED THE DETAILS CALLED FOR. CASE HEARD AND DISCUSSED. AGREED FOR AD DITION OF RS.3,00,000 (RUPEES THREE LAKHS) TO COVER .. THUS IT COULD BE SEEN THAT THE ORDER SHEET MAINTAIN ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DOES NOT THROW LIGHT ON THE DETAILS OF EXAMINATION CARRIED OUT BY THE A.O, THOUGH IT IS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 4. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAS PL ACED A COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR LOW PROFIT FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATI ON. ACCORDINGLY LEARNED A.R CONTENDED THAT THE A.O HAS APPLIED HIS MIND AND COM PLETED THE ASSESSMENT AFTER OBTAINING THE REQUIRED INFORMATION AND HENCE IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT THERE WAS ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF A.O. THE LEARNED A.R ALSO REL IED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAW WITH REGARD TO THE LEGAL PROPOSITIONS IN THIS REGAR D. A) MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. (243 ITR 83 (S.C)) B) CIT V GABRIEL INDIA CO. LTD. (203 ITR 108 (BOM )) C) CIT V GANAPATH RAM BISHNOI (198 CTR 148 (RAJ.) ) WE ARE AWARE OF THE ESTABLISHED LEGAL PROPOSITIONS WITH REGARD TO THE POWERS OF LEARNED CIT WHILE INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 263 OF THE ACT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE IS NEITHER ANY DISCUSSION IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER NOR THERE IS ANY RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE A.O. HAS PASSED THE ORDE R AFTER EXAMINATION OF THE ITA NOS 68& 69/VIZAG/2007 P. JANAKIRAMA RAJU, VISAKH APATNAM PAGE 3 OF 3 VARIOUS DETAILS, AS POINTED OUT BY LEARNED CIT. TH E LETTER FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A.O IS NOT RELATED TO THE POINTS MENTION ED BY THE LEARNED CIT. EXCEPT THE ORAL STATEMENT MADE BY THE LEARNED A.R TO THE E FFECT THAT THE A.O HAS EXAMINED ALL THE ASPECTS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BRING ANY DOCUMENT TO SUBSTANTIA TE HIS ORAL STATEMENT. 5. THE VARIOUS TYPES OF EXAMINATION CARRIED OUT BY THE A.O DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CAN BE JUDGED EITHER FROM TH E NOTING MADE IN THE ORDER SHEET OR FROM THE CORRESPONDENCES EXCHANGED BETWEEN THE A.O OR FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IF THE DETAILS COULD NOT BE DEDUCED FROM ANY ONE OF THE DOCUMENTS STATED ABOVE, ONE CAN ONLY PRE SUME THAT THE A.O DID NOT CARRY OUT THE EXERCISE PROPERLY, WHICH HE IS EXPECT ED TO CARRY OUT UNDER THE ACT. IN THAT CASE, IN OUR VIEW, THE CRYPTIC ASSESSMENT O RDER CAN BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. I N VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSIONS, IN OUR VIEW, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ACTION OF LEARNED CIT IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 263 FOR BOTH THE YE ARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (B R BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PVV/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM, DATE: 27-09- 2010 COPY TO 1 SHRI P. JANAKIRAMA RAJU, DOOR NO.58 - 21/50 BUTCHIRAJUPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM 2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WARD - 4, VISAKHAPATNAM 3 THE CIT 2, VISAKHAPATNAM 4 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 5 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM