Shailaja Kalvakuntla, Hyderabad V. ITO,Ward- 3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 733/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6090 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M H NAIK
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 143(3); 147; 68; 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.733/HYD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 SMT. S H AILAJA KALVAKUNTLA, HYDERABAD. PAN AHGPK9438D VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2) HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : MR. K.C. DEVDAS FOR REVENUE : MR. M. H. NAIK DATE OF HEARING : 12.01.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 .01.2016 ORDER PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5 LAKHS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE D ID NOT FILE ANY RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09. THEREAFTER, FOR THE REASONS RECORDED, A NOTICE UNDE R SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE O N 22.11.2010 CALLING FOR A RETURN OF INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE TO THE SAID NOTICE OR TO THE 2 ITA.NO.733/HYD/2014 SMT. SHAILAJA KALVAKUNTLA, HYDERABAD SUBSEQUENT NOTICES. A FRESH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 14 2(1) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 12.12.2011 AS A FINAL OPPORTUNITY. ASSESSEES AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED AND FURNISHED THE INFORMATION CALLED FOR. AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION/DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 144 READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THE A .O. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTICED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.5 LAKHS WAS DEBITED THROUGH CHEQUE IN ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT IN ABN AMRO BANK ON 25.07.2007 AND THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS STATED TO HAVE BE THE REFUND OF THE ADVANCE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESS EE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE EVIDENCE OF THE RECEIPT AND THEREFORE, BROUGHT IT TO TAX UNDER SECTION 68 OF TH E I.T. ACT. 3. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD AGREED TO PURCHASE LAND AT YAMZAL (V), SHAMIRPET (M), RANGA R EDDY DISTRICT FROM ONE MR. B. VENKATA RATNAKAR REDDY FOR WHICH ADVANCE HAD BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE ON 02.07.2006 AND SINCE THE TRANSACTION DID NOT GO THR OUGH, THE ADVANCE WAS RETURNED TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH CH EQUE DATED 24.07.2007. ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED CONFIRMAT ION LETTER FROM MR. B. VENKATA RATNAKAR REDDY AND THAT THE AMOUNT DID NOT REPRESENT A CREDIT LIABILITY TO BE A SSESSED UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) CA LLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE A.O. AND THE A.O. SUBMITTED HIS 3 ITA.NO.733/HYD/2014 SMT. SHAILAJA KALVAKUNTLA, HYDERABAD REPORT DATED 09.12.2013 STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE C OULD NOT PRODUCE THE SAID PERSON FOR EXAMINATION AND FUR THER THAT THE SUMMON SENT TO THE PARTY AT THE GIVEN ADDR ESS DID NOT YIELD ANY RESULT. A.O. ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ADVANCE OF RS.5 LAKHS WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. TAKING THE ABOVE R EMAND REPORT INTO CONSIDERATION, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN SE COND APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR.K.C. DEVDAS, DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE CONFIRMATION LETTER FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE COPY OF THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT AS ON 31.03.2008 AND ALSO BALANCE SHEET ON THAT DATE. HE HAS FURTHER DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE CONFIRMATION LET TER WHEREIN MR. B. VENKATA RATNAKAR REDDY HAS STATED TH AT HE HAS ISSUED A CHEQUE FOR RS.5 LAKHS TOWARDS PAYME NT OF REFUND OF ADVANCE RECEIVED BY HIM ON 02.07.2006 IN CASH TOWARDS SALE OF LAND OF AC.1.00 AT YAMZAL (V), SHAM IRPET (M), RANGA REDDY DISTRICT. HE HAS ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE CHEQUE BEARING NO.513093 OF UTI BA NK, JUBILEE HILLS BRANCH, HYDERABAD DATED 24.07.2007 THROUGH WHICH THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN REFUNDED. HE HAS ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE BALANCE SHEET AND T HE CASH FLOW STATEMENT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD SHOWN THE ADVANCE FOR RS. 5 LAKHS PAID FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. THUS, ACCORDING TO HIM, BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE MAKING AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION. 4 ITA.NO.733/HYD/2014 SMT. SHAILAJA KALVAKUNTLA, HYDERABAD 5. LD. D.R. HOWEVER, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS F AILED TO DISCHARGE HER ONUS IN FILING THE SUPPORTING EVID ENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE HER CLAIM. 6. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT FILED ANY DETAILS BEFORE THE A.O. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. HOWEVE R, SHE HAS FILED RELEVANT DETAILS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AN D THE LD. CIT(A) HAD CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE A.O. IT IS SEEN FROM THE REMAND REPORT THAT THE A.O. HAD REQUI RED THE PRODUCTION OF THE PARTY BEFORE HIM AS THE SUMMO NS ISSUED BY HIM DID NOT YIELD ANY RESULT. THE ASSESSE E HAS FILED THE CONFIRMATION LETTER IN WHICH THE DETAILS OF THE CHEQUE SUCH AS THE DATE OF CHEQUE, CHEQUE NO AND TH E BANK ON WHICH IT WAS TO DRAWN, ARE CLEARLY GIVEN. T HE A.O. COULD HAVE VERIFIED FROM THE BANK AS TO THE IDENTIT Y OF THE BEARER OF THE CHEQUE AND WHETHER IT BELONGS TO MR. B.VENKATA RATNAKAR REDDY AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE . THE A.O. FAILED TO DO ANY OF THESE ACTS BUT HAS CON FIRMED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE IDENTITY AND EV IDENCE OF THE TRANSACTIONS HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED. THIS, IN OUR OPINION, IS A FALLACY. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HER ONUS BY FURNISHING THE CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM THE PARTY AND GIVING THE RELEVANT DETAILS. IT IS FOR THE REVE NUE TO FOLLOW-UP SUCH INFORMATION AND CONDUCT NECESSARY VERIFICATION. AS THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE FAILED TO CARRY OUT THE VERIFICATION OF DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IN 5 ITA.NO.733/HYD/2014 SMT. SHAILAJA KALVAKUNTLA, HYDERABAD PROPER PERSPECTIVE SUCH AS VERIFICATION FROM THE BA NK, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FI LE OF THE A.O. WITH A DIRECTION TO VERIFY THE DETAILS WITH TH E BANK AND IF IT IS FOUND THAT THE CHEQUE RELATES TO MR. B . VENKATA RATNAKAR REDDY, THEN NO FURTHER ADDITION SH ALL BE MADE. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHAL L BE GIVEN A FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 7. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.01.2016 SD/- SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) (SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 20 TH JANUARY, 2016 VBP/- COPY TO 1. SMT. SHAILAJA KALVAKUNTLA, HYDERABAD 500 096. C/O. MR. B. NARSING RAO & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, PLOT NO.554, ROAD NO.92, JUBILEE HILLS , HYDERABAD 96. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2), HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(A) - IV , HYDERABAD. 4. CIT - III , HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT B BENCH, HYDERABAD 6. GUARD FILE