Mungi Jaipal Reddy, Hyd, Secunderabad V. ITO, Ward-8(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 912/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6256 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K J RAO
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 912/HYD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SRI MUNGI JAIPAL REDDY, HYDERABAD PAN AMFPM 1481 N VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 8(2), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PAWAN KUMAR CHAKRAPANI REVENUE BY : SHRI K.J. RAO DATE OF HEARING 19-07-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27-07-2016 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) - III, HY DERABAD FOR AY 2009-10. 2. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FIND THAT THERE WAS A D ELAY OF 455 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE F ILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF THE SAID DELAY WHEREIN IT WAS ST ATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SUFFERING WITH BIPOLAR DEPRESSION SINC E MARCH 2013 AND WAS UNDER CONTINUOUS MEDICAL SUPERVISION AND MO NITORING. TO THIS EFFECT A COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE WAS MADE AVAILABLE ON RECORD. DUE TO THE SAID REASON, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE APPEAL WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. HE, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE SAID DELAY MAY BE CONDONED AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING AND ADJUD ICATION. THE 2 ITA NO. 912/H/15 MUNGI JAIPAL REDDY, HYD. ASSESSEE ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT AFFIRMING THE SAID REASONS IN THE AFFIDAVIT. 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSE E AND THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, WE ARE SATISFI ED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT REASON IN NOT SUBMITTING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. WE, THEREFORE AD MIT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING AND ADJUDICATION. 4. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE, AN INDIVIDUAL HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2009-10 O N 09/07/2009 BY ADMITTING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,05,178 AND INCOME OF RS. 1,20,000 FROM AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. THE AO DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 94,65,884/- BY MAKING THE FOLLO WING ADDITIONS U/S 69 OF THE ACT AS UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT: 1. ADDITION OF RS. 65,06,290/- 2. ADDITION OF RS. 16,37,019/- 3. ADDITION OF RS. 11,17,397/-. 5. WHEN THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL B EFORE THE CIT(A), THE CIT(A) PASSED AN EX-PARTE ORDER CONFIRM ING THE ACTION OF THE AO BY OBSERVING THAT THOUGH SUFFICIENT OPPORTUN ITIES WERE GIVEN TO ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR AND PRESENT HIS CASE. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESS EE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN A N OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THE CASE. WITH REGARD TO MERITS OF THE CASE , HE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ADDED THE CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME WHEREAS THE SAME WAS CREDIT FOR DISHONOURED CHEQUES AND FIXED DEPOSIT MATURITY. FOR CASH DEPOSI TS, HE SUBMITTED THAT THESE WERE COLLECTED ON BEHALF OF M/S NAGARJUN A FERTILIZERS FOR 3 ITA NO. 912/H/15 MUNGI JAIPAL REDDY, HYD. PURCHASE OF LAND. HE PRAYED THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE ARE TECHNICALLY INCORRECT. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMMISSION AGENT AND GETS COMMISSION/BROKERAGE FOR MEDIATING BETWEEN PARTIES IN THE REAL ESTATE DEALINGS. 8. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 9. AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE A SSESSEE POSSESSES SUFFICIENT MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE, WHICH C OULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES EVEN THOUGH OPPORTUN ITY WAS GIVEN TO HIM. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 250(6) WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DISPOSING O FF THE APPEAL SHALL BE IN WRITING AND SHALL STATE POIN TS FOR DETERMINATION, DECISIONS THEREON AND THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION. BUT, IN THIS CASE, HE HAD PRESUMED THAT THE DEPOSITS MADE ARE ALL FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE. KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL J USTICE, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LA W AND CONSIDER THE MATERIAL INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AF TER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH JULY, 2016 SD- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAH MAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 27 TH JULY, 2016 KV 4 ITA NO. 912/H/15 MUNGI JAIPAL REDDY, HYD. COPY TO:- 1) SRI MUNGI JAIPAL REDDY, C/O V.M. CHAKRAPANI & C O., CAS., 5-5-8/9 & 10, IIND FLOOR, SRINIVASA BUILDING, R ANIGUNJ, SECUNDERABAD 500 003. 2) ITO, WARD 8(2), INCOME-TAX TOWERS, HYDERABAD 3) CIT(A) - III, HYDERABAD 4) CIT - II, HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD.