Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 98526 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
3 month(s) 2 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
04-09-2015
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
B
Assessment Year
2004-2005
Appeal Filed On
01-06-2015
Judgement Text
ITA NOS 734 AND 735 OF 2015 SUGUNA MOTORS P LTD HYD ERABAD PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.734 & 735/HYD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2004-05 & 2005-06) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 WARANGAL VS. SUGUNA MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED WARANGAL PAN: AAHCS 4771 N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR REVENUE : SHRI G. SURYA PRASAD FOR ASSESSEE : N O N E DATE OF HEARING : 31 .0 8 .2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04 .09. 2015 O R D E R PER SMT.P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. BOTH THE ABOVE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR THE A.YS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 RESPECTIVELY. IN BOTH THE APPEALS, THE ONLY GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE RE-ASSESSMENT U/S 147(1) OF THE AC T IS INVALID. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE FOR THE A.Y 2004-05 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH IS A DEALER FOR MARUTI UDYOG LTD (MUL) HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 1.11.2004. THE RE TURN OF INCOME WAS INITIALLY PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT ON 13 .01.2005 AND SUBSEQUENTLY COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 148 OF THE ACT ON 28.12.2007 DETERMINING THE ASSESSEES INCOME AT RS.3,07,87,770. SUBSEQUENTLY THE CASE WAS REOPENED U/S 147 OF THE ACT BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 ON THE GROUND THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. DU RING THE ITA NOS 734 AND 735 OF 2015 SUGUNA MOTORS P LTD HYD ERABAD PAGE 2 OF 3 RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO MADE THE FOLLOWING DI SALLOWANCES AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL ADDITIONS: ADDITION TOWARDS 1% OF THE SALES RS.14,65,946 COMMISSION INCOME RECEIVED FROM BSNL NOT OFFERED TO TAX RS. 7,85,300 COMMISSION INCOME RECEIVED FROM ING VYSYA BANK RS.8,67,733 INTEREST ON FDR NOT OFFERED TO TAX RS.16,300 ADDITION TOWARDS DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) OF THE IT ACT RS.3,32,482 THUS, THE AO ASSESSED TAXABLE INCOME AT RS.57,05,3 51. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APP EAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE REOPENI NG OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 148 AS WELL AS THE MERITS OF THE ADD ITIONS MADE U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT. THE CIT (A) CONSI DERED THE ISSUE AT LENGTH AND HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS SOUG HT TO BE REOPENED AFTER 4 YEARS AFTER THE END OF THE RELEVAN T A.Y AND THEREFORE, THE FIRST PROVISO OF SECTION 147 OF THE I.T. ACT BECOMES APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEES CASE. HE OBSERVED THAT IN VIEW OF THE SAID PROVISO, IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THA T THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME WAS NOT DUE TO THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS FULLY AND TRULY BEFORE THE AO. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE RELEVANT FACTS PERTAINING TO THE ESCAPEMENT OF THE INCOME WERE AVAILABLE ON THE ASSE SSMENT RECORD AND THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE THE MATERIAL FACTS FULLY AND TRULY AND THE REFORE, THE NOTICE U/S 148 IS NOT VALID. AGAINST THIS FINDING O F THE CIT (A), REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US FOR BOTH THE A.YS. 4. THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AO, WHILE NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SEEN FROM RECORD T HAT THE NOTICE SENT BY THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN RETURNED UN-SERVED WI TH THE FOLLOWING REMARK BY THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT (ADDRESS EE LEFT, HENCE RETURNED TO SENDER). HAVING GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL ON ITA NOS 734 AND 735 OF 2015 SUGUNA MOTORS P LTD HYD ERABAD PAGE 3 OF 3 RECORD AND HAVING REGARD TO THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. DR AND ALSO HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE LD. DR HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO BRING ANY MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD TO REBUT THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT (A) THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS SOUGHT TO BE REOPEN ED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT A.Y AND THAT ALL THE MATERIAL RELEVANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE RELEVA NT A.Y INCLUDING THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE NOTICE U/S 148 O F THE ACT, WAS ON RECORD OF THE AO, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO T AKE A DIFFERENT VIEW FROM THAT OF THE CIT (A). IN VIEW OF THE SAME, REVENUE APPEAL FOR A.Y 2004-05 IS DISMISSED. WE FIND THAT FOR THE A.Y 2005-06 ALSO, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE SIMILAR AND THE REV ENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) SETTING ASIDE T HE NOTICE U/S 148. FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN ABOVE FOR A.Y 2 004-05, THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y 2005-06 IS ALSO DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR BOTH THE A.YS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015. S D/ - S D/ - (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 4 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015. VNODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, STATION ROAD, WARANGAL 2. M/S SUGUNA MOTORS (P) LTD, H.NO.15-1-59/1 OLD GOVT. POLYTECHNIC, AUTONAGAR CROSS ROAD, WARANGAL 3. CIT (A)-3 HYDERABAD 4. CIT(3) HYDERABAD 5. THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER
Mehul