Madhupala Estates Private Limited, Hyd, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Circle-16(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 702/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5014 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-01-2021
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Assessment record

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 702/HYD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 M/S.MADHUPALA ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD [PAN: AACCM3943R] VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : NONE FOR REVENUE : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR PANDEY, DR DATE OF HEARING : 21-01-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09-02-2021 O R D E R PER BENCH : THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY.2002-03 ARISES FROM TH E CIT(A)-4, HYDERABADS ORDER DATED 30-03-2016 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.0154/DCIT,CIR.16(2)/14-15/CIT(A)-4/HYD/15 -16. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS IN THE INSTANT APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER IS CONT RARY TO LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER ERRED IN CONFIRMING A DDITION OF RS.2,58,65,160/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO PAYMENTS FOR PURCHASE OF LANDS. ITA NO. 702/HYD/2016 :- 2 -: 3. THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER ERRED IN AN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN DULY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS AND HENCE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME . 4. THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER ERRED IN CONFIRMING A N AMOUNT OF RS.35,00,000/- BEING PAYMENTS MADE TO MR.M.RAM REDD Y AND OTHERS. 5.THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER ERRED IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.19,00,000/- BEING PAYMENT MADE FOR PURCHASE OF L AND IN SHAHSHABAD. 3. MR. PANDEY AT THE OUTSET TOOK US TO THE CIT(A)S DETAILE D DISCUSSION IN PARAS 7 TO 9 AFFIRMING THE ASSESSING OF FICERS ACTION MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION(S) AS UNDER: 7. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND AVAILABLE MATERIAL ALONG WITH REMAND REPORT OF AO AND APPELLANT'S REPLY. IN THIS CASE AS PER TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER ONE ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT APPEARED IN THE BOOKS OF SRI RAM REDDY, AS PER WHICH DIFFERENT AMOUNTS PAID BY APPELLANT TO MR. RAM REDDY FROM 10-05-2001 TO 31-03-2002 TOTALLING TO RS. 2,58 ,65,160/-, WHICH WERE NOT APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT TH EREBY THIS AMOUNT WAS ADDED BY THE AO. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THE BA NK ACCOUNT COPIES AND LEDGER ACCOUNT OF SRI RAM REDDY IN THE B OOKS OF APPELLANT WHEREIN THERE ARE RS. 3,97,39,309/- AMOUNT ADVANCED TO SRI RAM REDDY. THESE DETAILS WERE FORWARDED TO THE AO FOR H IS COMMENTS AND THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED THAT, 'THE LE DGER ACCOUNT OF SRI RAM REDDY IN THE BOOKS OF APPELLANT AND THE RECEIPT S RECORDED BY SRI RAM REDDY IN HIS BOOKS REVEALS THAT THE DATES OF RE CEIPT OF ADVANCES RECEIVED IN THESE TWO ACCOUNTS ARE TOTALLY DIFFEREN T. THE LEDGER SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT SHOWS THAT THE PAYMENT O F MONEY FROM 7-05-2001 RANGING FROM RS. 30,000/- TO MAXIMUM OF R S. 10 LAKHS, WHEREAS THE ACCOUNT OF RAM REDDY SHOWS RECEIPTS IN LUMP SUM RANGING FROM RS. 7,63,954/- TO RS.50,43,201 ON DIFF ERENT DATES, TOTALLY DIFFERING FROM THE AMOUNTS AND DATES MENTIO NED IN THE APPELLANT'S LEDGER ARE NOT MATCHING WITH THE DATES OF RECEIPTS OF MONEY FROM SRI RAM REDDY AS PER HIS LEDGER ACCOUNT REPRODUCED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED AS EVIDENCE AND RS. 2,58,65,1 60/- ADDITIONS MADE MAY BE SUSTAINED' . 8. AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION S IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT LEDGER ACCOUNT AS SUBMITTED BEFORE ME WAS DIFFERENT FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF SRI RAM REDDY AVAILABL E IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS THEREBY ALL THE SUBMISSIONS OF T HE APPELLANT WERE NOT ACCEPTED AND THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO CONFI RMED. ITA NO. 702/HYD/2016 :- 3 -: 9. WITH REGARD TO OTHER ADDITIONS OF RS.35 LAKHS AN D 19 LAKHS, KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE REMAND REPORT AS VERIFIED AN D AS STATED BY THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT, I AM IN CONFORMITY WITH TH E AO, HENCE ADDITION MADE CONFIRMED. 4. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO REVENU ES VEHEMENT CONTENTIONS SUPPORTING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION NO T ONLY MADE IN BOTH OF THE LOWER PROCEEDINGS BUT ALSO A S PER THE ASSESSING OFFICERS REMAND REPORT AS WELL. WE NOTICE THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED DETAILED DOCUMENTS EXP LAINING THE AMOUNTS IN DISPUTE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REMAND, THE LATTER HAD BRUSHED ASIDE THAT PRIMA-FACIE, THE SAME PERTAINED TO SOME OTHER ACCOUNTS. IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO WH AT ARE THAT SO CALLED OTHER ACCOUNTS IN THE ASSESSEES CASE VIS--VIS SHRI RAM REDDY (SUPRA). WE THEREFORE DEEM IT APPROPR IATE TO RESTORE THE INSTANT ISSUE(S) BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER FOR HIS APPROPRIATE AFRESH RECONCILIATION AS PER LAW WITHIN TH REE EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITIES OF HEARING. 5. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES IN ABOVE TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH FEBRUARY, 2021 SD/- SD/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (S.S.GO DARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER HYDERABAD, DATED: 09-02-2021 TNMM ITA NO. 702/HYD/2016 :- 4 -: COPY TO : 1.M/S.MADHUPALA ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED, #1-13-113/12/A, R.K.PURAM, KOTHAPET, HYDERABAD. 2.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16( 2), HYDERABAD. 3.CIT(APPEALS)-4, HYDERABAD. 4.PR.CIT-4, HYDERABAD. 5.D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6.GUARD FILE.