J. Anjaneya Sharma, Sec'bad, Secunderabad V. ITO, Ward-10(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 75/Hyd/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4554 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 8 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-09-2021
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N SRIKANTH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 143(3); 143(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B - SMC , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 75/HYD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 SRI J. ANJANEYA SHARMA, SECUNDERABAD 500 009. PAN: ACLPJ 0746 P VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 10(2) , INCOME TAX TOWERS, AC GUARDS, HYDERABAD 500 004. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: NONE REVENUE BY: SHRI N. SRIKANTH, DR DATE OF HEARING: 20/09/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28 /09/2021 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) 6, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO.0762/2014 - 15/CIT(A) - 6/15 - 16, DATED 12/10/2015 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE AY 2011 - 12. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED TWO GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL AND THEY ARE EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE APPELLANTS CASE IN SO FAR AS THE MA TTERS DISPUTED ARE CONCERNED. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACTS AND THE LEGAL POSITION THAT: 2 (I) THE ASSESSEE IS CONTESTING A SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE BEFORE THE HONBLE XVI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE RANGAREDDY DISTRICT AT MALKAJGIRI, HYDERABAD FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF SRI BANDELA CHANDRAM AND THAT THE MATTER IS SUB - JUDICE. (II) THAT THE ASSESSEE IS DUTY BOUND TO HONOUR THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE COURT IN EITHER AT LEAST REFUNDING THE MONEY OR REGISTERING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. (III) THE FACT THAT IN A SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE IS EQUITABLE REMEDY AND NOT THE MERE REFUND OF MONEY. (IV) THAT THE MENTIONING OF THE WORDS ON DIFFEREN T DATES BETWEEN APRIL 2010 TO MARCH 2011 IN CLAUSE - 2 OF THE AGREEMENT OF SALE DOES NOT PREJUDICE THE AGREEMENT. (V) THE FACT THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 8,25,060/ - HAS BEEN TRULY STATED. (VI) THE FACT THAT THE AGREEMENT OF SALE IS NOT A FABRICATED DOCUMENT. 3 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2011 - 12 ON 19/10/2011 ADMITTING AN INCOME OF RS. 2,40,540/ - . THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND THE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS SERVED ON THE AS SESSEE. 4 . DURING THE SCRU TINY PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. AO OBSERVED THAT : (I) I N THE P & L ACCOUNT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED RS. 1,00,676/ - AS NET LOSS FRO M DAIRY BUSINESS. (II) IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, T HE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RS.8,25,000/ - AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. (III) THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED AN ADVANCE OF RS. 28,00,000/ - FROM MR. BANDELA CHANDRAM OF LAXMAPUR VILLAGE OF SHAMIRPET MANDAL TOWARDS SALE OF AC. 2.32 GTS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED AT THE SAME VILLAGE. 3 5 . IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENC E WITH REGARD TO LOSS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN DAIRY BUSINESS THE LD. AO MADE DISALLOWANCES OF RS.1,00,676/ - . FURTHER , CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEE S FAILURE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR IN RESPECT OF THE ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM MR. BANDELA CHANDRAM , THE LD. AO TREATED THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 28 LAKHS AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME AND BROUGHT THE SAME TO TAX. HOWEVER, W ITH REGARD TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. AO MADE ENQUIRIES AND ESTIMATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS. 4,00,000/ - AGAINST THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF RS. 8,25,000/ - AND TREATED THE BALANCE OF RS. 4,25,060/ - (RS. 8,25,000 RS. 4,00,000) AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UND ER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES . ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. AO ASSESSE D THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE AT RS. 35,66,271/ - AND RAISED DEMAND OF RS. 10,21,881/ - . AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESS EE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). 6. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL, GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE LOSS OF RS. 1,00,676/ - CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN DAIRY BUSINESS AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,25,060/ - AND RS. 28,00,000/ - MADE BY THE LD. AO UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE AND UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT RESPECTIVELY . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4 7 . AT THE TIME OF HEARING NONE APPEARED BEFORE ME ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FILED ANY LETTER SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF THE CASE . FURTHER, IT IS ALSO APPARENT FROM THE ORDER SHEET OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS POSTED FOR HEARING ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, BUT NON E APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS SITUATION, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE HIS APPEAL. HOWEVER, SINCE THE APPEAL IS FILED WAY BACK MORE THAN FIVE YEARS AGO AS WELL AS CONSIDERING THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE APP EAL, I PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 8. ON EXAMINING THE ORDERS OF THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES , IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS WELL AS THE CASH ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM MR. BANDELA CHANDRAM . FURTHER, IT IS ALSO APPARENT FROM THE RECORD THAT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING 16 PAGES WHICH COMPRISE (I) AGREEMENT OF SALE DEE DATED 09/ 04/2010 (PAGES 1 - 3) ; (2) SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE (PAGES 4 - 14) AND (3) A WARD OF LOCK ADALAT DATED 09/09/ 2017 (PAGES 15 - 16) AND COPY OF THE PATTADAR PASS BOOK ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN MY OPINION, TH ES E DOCUMENTS/ EVIDENCE WILL GO TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER RELATING TO THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF AGRICULT URAL INCOME AS WELL AS THE DISPUTED ADVANCE AMOUNT OF RS.28 LAKHS. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I ADMIT THESE DOCUMENTS / EVIDENCE AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO FOR FRESH CONS IDERATION OF THE 5 DISPUTED ISSUES ON MERITS AND TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ON MERITS AFTER AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSE SSEE OF BEING HEARD. I ALSO HEREBY CAUTION THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTLY CO - OPERATE BEFORE THE LD . REVENUE AUTHORITIES FAILING WHICH THE Y SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APP ROPRIATE ORDERS BAS ED ON THE MATERIAL S AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATI STICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREIN ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 2021. SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 2021. OKK COPY TO: - 1) SRI J. ANJANEYA SHARMA , 16, GUNROCK ENCLAVE, MUDFORT, SECUNDERABAD 500 00 9. 2) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD - 10(2), INCOME TAX TOWERS, A C GUARDS, HYDERABAD - 500 004. 3) THE CIT (A) - 6, HYDERABAD. 4) THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE