Sudha Matika, Hyd, Hyderabad V. ITO, Circle-4(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 861/HYD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2414 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S RAMA RAO SMT N SWAPNA
• Assessee Lawyers: KIRAN
• Keywords: Peak credit
• Section: 142(1); 27; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B SMC : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA.NOS.860 & 861/HYD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 2007 SMT. M. SUDHA, DOMALGUDA, HYDERABAD. PAN: AGOPM 7250 L VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE - 4(1), I.T. TOWERS, A.C. GUARDS, HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE: SHRI KIRAN FOR S. RAMA RAO FOR REVENUE : SMT. N. SWAPNA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 23.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.11.2017 ORDER PER D. MANMOHAN , VP. BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEY PERTAIN TO A.Y. 2006 - 2007. IN BOTH THE APPEALS, THE MAIN GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DISPOSING OF THE APPEALS WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSE SSEE. AS COULD BE NOTICED FROM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) , THE CASE WAS POSTED FROM TIME TO TIME RIGHT FROM 2015 AND NOTICE S W ERE SENT BY REGISTERED POST , WHICH W ERE RETURNED BACK WITH THE REMARK THAT NO SUCH PERSON FOUND AT THE PREMISES. UNDER THESE CIRCU MSTANCES, LD. CIT(A) HAD NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE EXCEPT TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEALS ON MERITS. EVEN BEFORE ME , NO MATERIAL WAS PLACED TO INDICATE THAT THERE IS EITHER CHANGE IN ADDRESS OR THERE WERE GENUINE REASONS FOR NOT RECEIVING THE NOTICES FROM 20 15 TO 201 7 . UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DISPOSING OF THE APPEALS EX - PARTE, QUA THE ASSESSEE. 2 2. ON MERITS, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT ONLY PEAK CREDIT WAS ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER , WHICH CANNOT BE TREATED AS CONCEALED INCOME SO AS TO LEVY PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE SAME ASPECT WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE DEPOSITS , W HICH BELONG TO HER HUSBAND AND THEREFORE, IT WAS A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, NO MATERIAL WAS PLACED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY, WITH REGARD TO LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS. 10,000/ - U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT, THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE NOTICES ISSUED U/SS 14 3 ( 2 ) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT. IN FACT, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE ACT. EVEN IN RESPECT OF THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 2 7 1 ( B ) OF THE ACT , THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, PENALTY OF RS. 10,000/ - WAS LEVIED, WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO RESPONSE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN AT THIS STAGE. SINCE THE FINDI NGS OF A.O. AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A) COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE ASSESSEE EVEN AT THIS STAGE, I DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THEREFORE, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD NOVEMBER, 2017. S D / - (D. MANMOHAN) VICE PRESIDENT HYDERABAD, DATED: 23 RD NOVEMBER , 2017 OKK, SR.PS 3 COPY TO 1. M. SUDHA, 1 - 2 - 365/20/E, FG - 2, HAPPY HOME APARTMENTS, GAGAN MAHAL, DOMALGUDA, HYDERABAD 500 029. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE - 4(1), I.T. TOWERS, A.C. GUARDS, HYDERABAD. 3. CIT (A) - 3, HYDERABAD. 4. PR. CIT - 1, HYDERABAD. 5. DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE