ITO, Ward-5(1), Hyderabad V. Sri Darga Sudhakar Reddy, Hyderabad

ITA 852/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 77860 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K HARITHADR
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. P.MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.852/HYD/13 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), HYDERABAD V/S. SHRI DARGA SUDHAKAR REDDY, HYDERABAD. ( PAN - AECPD 2572 C ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT. K.HARITHA,DR RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING 2 2 .04.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 2 .04.2014 O R D E R PER SMT. P.MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: TH IS IS AN APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10, AND IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) V, HYDERABAD DATED 21.2.2013. 2. THE ONLY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE R E VE N UE I S T H A T THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN PASSING AN ORDER IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME - TAX RULES, WITHOUT CALLING FOR A REMAND REPORT F R OM TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF TH E CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, AN INDI V I D UAL , ENGAGED IN THE BU S IN E SS OF LIQUOR, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR ON 30.9.2009, DECL A RING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS .3,09,000. THOUGH NOTICE UNDER S .143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 27.8.2 010, AND WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE , NONE APP E ARED FOR THE ASSESSEE , AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT UNDER S.144 OF THE ACT. HE MADE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS TO THE RETURNED INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE - ITA NO.852/HYD/2013 SHRI D.SUDHAKAR REDDY, HYDERABAD 2 ( A ) UNEXPLAIN E D C ASH DEPOSITS RS. 22,58,775 ( B ) RENTAL INCOME FROM NARAYANA JUNIOR COLLEGE RS. 13,33,128 ( C ) INCOM E ESTIMATED ON LIQUOR BUSIN E SS RS. 31,96,558 ( D ) UNDI S CLO S ED INVE S TMENT IN RESIDENTIAL HOU S E RS.2,30,00,000 ( E ) UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN BUILDING RS.1,05,00,000 4 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ADDITION S , ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), ALONGWITH EVIDENCE IN SUPPO R T OF HI S CON T ENTION S . THE CIT(A) DEL E TED THE ABOVE ADDIT I ON S , ACCEPTING TH E EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5 . AGGRIEVED, REVENUE IS IN A PPEAL B E FO R E US ON THE GROUND THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY TH E CIT(A) WITHOUT GIVING THE ASSESSING OFFICER AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE V E RACITY OF THE SAME AND THEREFOR E , IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCO M E - T AX RULES. 6 . THE LE ARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT T H E CIT(A) , AT LEAST, OUGHT TO HAVE CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT F R OM TH E ASSESSING OFFICER , WHO WOULD HAVE SUBMITTED THE REM A N D REPORT AFTER VERI F ICATION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVI D E N CE FIL E D BY TH E ASSESSEE AND FOR FAILURE TO DO SO, THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(A) IS VITIATED. 7 . THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR H E ARING ON 4.9.2013 AND THE ASSESSEE WAS REPRESENTED BY HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, SHRI A.SRINIVAS. THE SAID AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO APPEARED BEFORE THIS TR I BUNAL ON THE NE X T DAT E O F H E ARING I.E . ON 1 8 .9.2013, BUT NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR THE HEARINGS ON 2.1.2014 AND TODAY, VIZ. 22.4.2014. THE RE FORE, THE APPEAL IS HEARD EX - PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE AND IS DISPOSED OF AS UNDER - 8 . HAVING GONE THR OUGH TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) , WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FIL E D EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN SUPPORT OF HI S CON T ENTION S AND EXPLANATION S RELATING TO THE UNEXPLAINED CASH ITA NO.852/HYD/2013 SHRI D.SUDHAKAR REDDY, HYDERABAD 3 DEPOSIT S AND RENTAL INCOME FROM NARAYANA J UNIOR C OLLEGE AND ALSO INVESTMENTS MADE IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AS WELL AS BUILDING LET OUT TO NARAYANA INSTITUTIONS. TH E RE IS NO WHISPER OF ANY REMAND REPORT HAVING BEEN CALLED FR O M TH E AS S ESSIN G AUTHORITY, NOR THE CIT(A) VERIFYIN G THE V E RACITY OR AUTHENTICITY OF THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON HIS OWN. THE POWERS OF THE CIT(A) HAVE BEEN H E LD TO B E COTERMINOUS WITH TH OSE OF TH E ASSESSING AUTHORITY, AND THEREFORE, TH E CIT(A) COULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE EVID E NCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE , PR O VIDED HE HIMSELF CARRIES OUT THE VERIFICATION OF THE SAME. I N TH E CASE BEFORE US, SIN C E THE CIT(A) HAS NO T V ER IFIED THE DOCUM E N T S FILED BEFORE HIM, NOR HAS HE CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT F R OM THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE ACCEPTING THE CON T ENTION S O F TH E ASSESSEE, AND ALSO SINCE THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED EX - PARTE UNDER S.144 OF THE ACT, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(A) AND REMAND THE ISSUE TO TH E FIL E O F TH E ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECON S I D ERATION AND R E - COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE IN COME IN AC CORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL B E GIVEN FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF H E ARING AND FILIN G OF ALL TH E RELEVANT DOCUM E N T S BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. 9 . IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 2 2 .4.2014 SD/ - SD/ - ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) ( P.MADHAVI DEVI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT/ - 2 2ND APRIL, 2014 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI DARGA SUDHAKAR REDDY, PROP. SRI SAI JOHNNY WINES, 3 - 7, MALLIKARJUNA NAGAR, PEERZADIGUDA VILLAGE, NEAR UPPAL BUS DEPOT, HYDERABAD 2 . INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1) , HYDERABAD ITA NO.852/HYD/2013 SHRI D.SUDHAKAR REDDY, HYDERABAD 4 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) V, HYDERABAD 4 . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX I V, HYDERABAD 5 . DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S