Ramanujulu Rameshwari Keelapatla , Jagityal V. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Karimnagar

ITA 753/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8101 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K J DIVYA
• Keywords: Revised return; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH SMC, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.75 2 /HYD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014 - 15 SUDHAKAR REDDY ALUGUBELLI, JAGITYAL. PAN: AAQPA 3644 L VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, KARIMNAGAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 753 /HYD/20 19 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 14 - 15 RAMANUJULU RAJESHWARI KEELAPATLA, JAGITYAL. PAN: AFWPK 4109 B VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, KARIMNAGAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 754 /HYD/20 19 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 14 - 15 ANDALU ALUGUBALLI, JAGITYAL. PAN: ACFPA 8983 R VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, KARIMNAGAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SMT. S. SANDHYA REVENUE BY: SMT. K.J. DIVYA, DR DATE OF HEARING: 15/07/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17 /07/2019 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: THE ABOVE CAPTIONED THREE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THREE ASSESSEES SEPARATELY AND THEY PERTAIN TO A.Y. 2014 - 15. (I ) ITA NO.752/H/2019 IS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 12, HYDERABAD DATED 12/2/2019 2 IN APPEAL NO.10108/2018 - 19; (II) ITA NO. 753/H/2019 IS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 08, HYDERABAD DATED 15/02/2019 IN APPEAL NO. 10369/2018 - 19 AND ( III) ITA NO.754/H/2019 IS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 12, HYDERABAD DATED 20/2/2019 IN APPEAL NO. 10150/2018 - 19 . IN ALL THE SE CASES, THE LD. CIT(A)S HAD CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO WHO HAD LEVIED THE PENALTY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE E INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. SINCE, ALL THE THREE ASSESSEE S HA VE RAISED IDENTICAL GROUNDS IN ALL THE IR RESPECTIVE APPEALS , F OR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THEY ARE CLUBBED AND HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. IN THE CASE OF ALL THE THREE ASSESSEES SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SURVEY, DR. SUDHAKAR REDDY ALUGUBELLI ADMITTED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 14,50,000/ - FROM HIS NURSING HOME NAMED JAYA NURSING HOME. SIMILARLY, HIS WIFE SMT . ANDALU ALUGUBALLI ALSO ADMITTED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 12,10,000/ - FROM THE PHARMACY RUN BY HER IN THE PREMISES OF JAYA NURSING HOME . FURTHER, ONE OF THE DOCTOR PRACTICING IN JAYA NURSING HOME DR. RAMANUJULU RAJESHWARI KEELAPATLA ALSO ADMITTED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 8 LAKHS. SUBSEQUENTLY, ALL THE THREE ASSESSEES FILED REVISED RETURNS ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS. SINCE THE ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS UNEARTHED DURING 3 THE COURSE OF THE SURVEY THE LD. AO INVOKED THE PENAL PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND LEVIED PENALTY IN HANDS OF ALL THE THREE ASSESSEES. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO AS THE ASSESSES COULD NOT JUSTIFY THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE ME THAT THE LD. AO REQUIRED THE APPELLANTS TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL INCOM E DURING THE COURSE OF THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE IN ORDER TO SATISFY THE DEMAND OF THE LD. AO ALL THE THREE ASSESSEES HAD ADMITTED ADDITIONAL INCOME IN ORDER TO AVOID PROTRACTED LITIGATION. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THESE CASES WERE NOT FIT FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, THEY MAY BE DELETED. 4. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND VEHEMENTLY ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDERS OF THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATE RIALS ON RECORD. ON PERUSING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I FIND THAT ALL THE THREE ASSESSEES HAD ADMITTED ADDITIONAL INCOME IN ORDER TO AVOID UNNECESSARY LITIGATIONS. I ALSO DO NOT FIND THAT THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED AND ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE S HAD 4 RESULTED FROM ANY CONVINCING MATERIALS FOUND BY THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSES HAD AGREED FOR THE ADDITIONS IN ORDER TO AVOID UNNECESSARY CONFRONTATION WITH THE REVENUE. THE REFORE, IN MY VIEW THESE CASES ARE NOT FIT FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. HENCE, I HEREBY SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT (A)S AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPECTIVE LD. AOS TO DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED IN THE HANDS OF ALL THE THREE ASSESSEES. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH JULY, 2019. SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 17 TH JULY , 2019 OKK COPY TO: - 1) (I) SUDHAKAR REDDY ALUGUBELLI, (II) RAMANUJULU RAJESHWARI KEELAPATLA , (III) SMT . ANDALU ALUGUBALLI 7 - 6 - 223 & 224, ASHOK NAGAR, JAGITYAL, KARIMNAGAR DIST. 2) ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, KARIMNAGAR. 3) THE CIT(A) - 12 , HYDERABAD ; CIT(A) - 8, HYDERABAD. 4) THE PR. CIT - 12 , HYDERABAD : THE PR. CIT - 8, HYDERABAD 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE