Shri Perumalla Vishnuvardhan, Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 856/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6488 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M SITARAM
• Keywords: Onus to prove

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT P.MADHAVI DEVI, JUDIIAL MEMBER ITA NO.856/HYD/2014 : ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-1 0 SHRI PERUMALLA VISHNUVARHDAN, HYDERABAD (PAN ADFPP 2510 G) V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.SRINIVAS RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.SITARAM DR DATE OF HEARING 14 . 6 .201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15.6.2016 O R D E R PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) II , HYDERABAD DATED 19.2.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN I NDIVIDUAL AND DIRECTOR IN ALLEN HOMOEO AND HERBAL PRODUCTS LTD., HYDERABAD. HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9-10 ON 20.4.2009, ADMITTING INCOME OF RS.15,75,400, COMPRISING ONLY O F DIRECTORS REMUNERATION. 3. THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS ADDITION MADE UNDER S.68 OF THE ACT, BEING UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.856/HYD/2014 SHRI PERUMALLA VISHNUVARHDAN, HYDERABAD 2 4. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER THAT THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS WAS LOANS TAKEN FROM SEVERAL AGRICULTURISTS. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, HE SUBMITTED CONFIRMATI ON LETTERS, COPIES OF PATTADAR PASS-BOOKS AND INCOME CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY TAHSILDAR. LIST OF SUCH PERSONS IS GIVEN IN PAGE 3 OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHICH IS NOT EXTRACTED HEREIN FOR THE SAKE OF BREVI TY. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSES SEE. FOR THE REASONS GIVEN AT PARA 1.9 ON PAGE 6 AND 7 OF HER OR DER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AN D MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.42,58,118. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APP EAL. 5. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), ASSESSEE SUBMITTED H AT HE WOULD PRODUCE THE PARTIES OR EXAMINATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER T O EXAMINE THE LENDERS AND SUBMIT A FRESH REPORT ON THE GENUINENES S OF THE LOANS. IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PROD UCE THE PARTIES. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED REMAND REPOR T SEEKING SUSTENANCE OF THE ADDITION MADE. THE CIT(A) ACCORDI NGLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 6. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI A.SRINIV AS, SUBMITTED THAT THESE PERSONS WERE ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN THE TELANGANA MOVEMENT FOR SEPARATE STATE AND WERE IMPRISONED DUR ING THE RELEVANT PERIOD. HE PLEADS THAT FOR THIS REASON, ASSESSEE C OULD NOT PRODUCE THE LENDERS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE REM AND PROCEEDINGS. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED A LL NECESSARY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AND THUS, HE HAS DISCHARGED THE BURDEN OF PROOF THAT LAY ON HIM. IT IS SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT RIGHT IN DISBELIEVING THE EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF ITA NO.856/HYD/2014 SHRI PERUMALLA VISHNUVARHDAN, HYDERABAD 3 CERTIFICATES FROM TAHSILDAR EVIDENCING AGRICULTURAL INCOME ETC. HE PLEADS THAT THE ADDITION BE DELETED. 7. LEARNED SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SH RI M.SITARAM, RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A), THOUGH NOT LEAVING HIS GROUND, HE SUBMITTE D THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, AS THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFF ICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE LENDERS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS. 8. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE ISSUE IS SENT BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH EXAMINATION. 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDIC ATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNIT Y TO DEMONSTRATE THE IDENTITY, AND CREDIT-WORTHINESS OF THE LENDERS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (P.MADHAVI DEVI) ( J.SUDHAKAR REDDY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT/- 15 TH JUNE, 2016 ITA NO.856/HYD/2014 SHRI PERUMALLA VISHNUVARHDAN, HYDERABAD 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI PERUMALLA VISHNUVADHAN, 17-1-383/99/A, VINA Y NAGAR COLONY, I.S. SADAN X ROAD, HYDERABAD 2. 3 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), HYDERABAD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) II , HYDERABAD 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX I , HYDERABAD 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ITAT, HYDERABAD B.V.S. ASTMP