Lahari Constructions, Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Hyderabad

ITA 927/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8980 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences; Retraction

Judgement Text

ITA NO 927 OF 2018 LAHAR I CONSTRUCTIONS HYDERABAD. PAGE 3 OF 5 ADDITION TO THE ABOVE REPLY, THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURN ISHED THE DATA SHOWING THAT HIS INCOME WAS MUCH LESS THAN WHAT WAS DECLARED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. THE AO EXAMINED THE SA ID INFORMATION AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RETRA CTING THE STATEMENT AFTER A GAP OF TWO YEARS AND THEREFORE, T HE SAME IS ONLY AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND NOT BONAFIDE. THEREFORE, THE AO BROUGHT THE ADMITTED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.10.00 CRORES DURIN G THE COURSE OF SURVEY ALSO TO TAX. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREF ERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A), ALONGWITH THE RELEVANT MATERIAL . THE CIT (A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO ON THE SAID MATERIAL. THE AO SUBMITTED THE REMAND REPORT ON 27.11.2017, THE E XTRACT OF WHICH IS REPRODUCED AT PARA 5.4 OF THE CIT (A)S OR DER, WHEREIN THE AO DID NOT GIVE ANY FINDING ON THE MERITS OF THE EV IDENCE EXCEPT TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS COMPLETE IN ITS CL ARIFICATION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT (A) DOE S NOT CONTAIN ANY INFORMATION ON ACCEPTANCE OR OTHERWISE OF ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCE, AND THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO GO INT O THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME, THE CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSES SEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RETRACTED THE STATEMENT GIVEN IN T HE COURSE OF SURVEY, IMMEDIATELY ON 22.5.2014, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 13 AND 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE SUBMITTED THA T BOTH THE AO AS WELL AS THE CIT (A), HAVE HELD THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS RETRACTED THE STATEMENT ONLY IN 2016 I.E. AFTER TWO YEARS WHICH IS NOT CORRECT. HE SUBMITTED THAT IF THE ADDITIONAL IN COME OF RS.10.00 CRORES IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, THE TOTAL TU RNOVER OF THE ITA NO 927 OF 2018 LAHAR I CONSTRUCTIONS HYDERABAD. PAGE 4 OF 5 ASSESSEE WOULD BE AT LEAST 12.5 CRORES, WHEREAS HIS TOTAL TURNOVER HAS NEVER BEEN MORE THAN FIVE YEARS FOR THE PAST SE VERAL A.YS I.E. FROM A.Y 2008-09 TO 2014-15 AND THE RESPECTIVE AOS HAVE ACCEPTED THE SAME IN THE EARLIER A.YS. THEREFORE, A CCORDING TO HIM EVEN THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL INCOME DURING THE SURVEY HAD NO BASIS OR ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE PARTICULARLY SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DONE ANY MAJOR WORKS AFTER THE SURVEY AND I T HAD HANDLED ONLY PETTY WORKS, THE DETAILS OF WHICH WERE SUBMITTED TO THE AO. HE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMENT S HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BUT NONE OF THEM HAVE VERIFIED THE SAME AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE SE T ASIDE. 4. THE LEARNED DR WAS ALSO HEARD, WHO PLACED RELIAN CE UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAD ACCEPTED OR ADMITTED THE ADDITI ONAL INCOME DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AND RETRACTION OF THE S AME AFTER TWO YEARS IS NOTHING BUT AN AFTERTHOUGHT. 5. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE SURVEY WAS ON 2.1.2014 AND THE STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED ON 2.1.2014 AND 6.1.2014 A DMITTING THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.10.00 CRORE. HOWEVER, THE S AME WAS RETRACTED VIDE LETTER DATED 22.5.2014. THE AO AND T HE CIT (A) ARE ONLY REFERRING TO THE LETTER DATED 15.12.2016, AS L ETTER OF RETRACTION, WHICH IS NOT CORRECT. FURTHER, THE ASSE SSEE HAS ALSO FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENT ION THAT HIS TURNOVER NEVER EXCEEDED RS.5.00 CRORES OVER THE PAS T A.YS AND THEREFORE, INCLUSION OF THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS .10.00 CRORES