Padmamma Kalal, Vikarabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vikarabad

ITA 784/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8438 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROHIT MAJUMDAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 201; 13; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B BENCH, HYDERABAD. BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L . P . SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) ITA NO. 784 /HYD/20 19 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 13 - 14 ) S MT. PADMAMMA KALAL, VIKARABAD . PAN AOTPK 7176C ..APPELLANT. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, VIKARABAD . ..RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. RAMA RAO. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ROHIT MAJUMDAR. (D.R.) DAT E OF HEARING : 25.05 . 2021. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 .0 8 .2021. O R D E R PER SHRI S.S. GODARA, J.M. : THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASST. YEAR 201 3 - 14 ARISES FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1, HYDERABAD S ORDER DT. 28.02.2019 PASSED IN CASE NO. 0105/2016 - 17/ITO, WARD - 1, VIKARABAD/CIT(A) - 1/HYD/2018 - 19 IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). HEARD BO TH THE PARTIES . C ASE FILE PERUSE D. 2 ITA NO. 784/HYD/2019 2. WE COME TO THE ASSESSEE'S SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES' HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN MAKING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT ADDITION UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT TO THE TUNE OF RS.63,64,070 IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT DT.31.3.2016 AND AFFIRMED IN THE CIT(A)S LOWER APPELLATE ORDER READING AS UNDER : 3 ITA NO. 784/HYD/2019 CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S.234A, 234B AND 234C ARE CONSEQUENTIAL AND MANDATORY AS PER INCOME TAX ACT, THEREFORE NOT ADJUDICATED. 4 ITA NO. 784/HYD/2019 3. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RIVAL PLEADINGS AGAINST AND IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT ADDITION QUA ASSESSEE'S COST OF CONSTRUCTION. 4. IT EMERGES FROM A PERUSAL OF THE CIT(A) DISCUSSION THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION HAS EMANATED BASED ON THE VALUATION CELL REPORT ONLY QUA THE ASSESSEE'S C OST OF CONSTRUCTION. BOTH THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FURTHER FAILED TO DISPUTE THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF THE DIFFERENTIAL COST OF IMPUGNED COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN HER BOOKS COMING TO RS.75 LAKHS AS COST THAT DETERMINED BY THE VALUATION CELL RESULTING IN THE ADDITION NOR IT IS CLEAR AS TO WHETHER THE DEPARTMENT HAS GIVEN HER THE BENEFITS OF DIFFERENCE IN STATE VIS - - VIS CPWD RATES, SELF SUPERVISION AND THE CORRESPONDING COST OF THE MATERIAL HAD BEEN TAKEN AS THAT IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR ONLY. FACED WITH THIS SITUATION, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE THAT A LUMP SUM ADDITION OF RS.31,82,035 @ 50% OF THAT IN ISSUE AMOUNTING TO RS.63,64,070 WOULD BE JUST AND 5 ITA NO. 784/HYD/2019 APPROPRIATE WITH A RIDER THAT SAME SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS A PRECED ENT IN ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE GETS PART RELIEF IN FOREGOING TERMS. NECESSARY COMPUTATION SHALL FOLLOW AS PER LAW. 5. THIS ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN ABOVE TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18TH AUG. , 2 021. SD/ - SD/ - (L .P. SAHU) (S.S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DT. 18 .0 8 .2021. * REDDY GP COPY TO : 1. SMT. PADMAMMA KALAL, 4 - 2 - 1126/1, NEAR FIRE STATION, VIKARABAD - 501 101 2. ITO, WARD - 1, VIKARABAD. 3. PR. C I T - 2 , HYDERABAD. 4. CIT(APPEALS) - 1, HYDERABAD. 5. DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SR. PVT. SECRETARY, ITAT, HYDERABAD.