Gutta Narsaimha Reddy, Nalgonda V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Suryapet

ITA 953/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1712 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 953/HYD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 GUTTA NARASIMHA REDDY, RAMANNAPET [PAN: ARDPG6155C] VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SURYAPET (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : NONE FOR REVENUE : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR PANDEY, DR DATE OF HEARING : 17-05-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01-07-2021 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY.2009-10 ARISES FROM TH E CIT(A)-3, HYDERABADS ORDER DATED 19-01-2018 PASSED IN CASE NO.0441/ITO-W-1/SYP/CIT(A)-3/2016-17, IN PROCEEDING S U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [IN SHORT, THE ACT]. NONE APPEARED AT ASSESSEES BEHEST. CASE FILE PERUS ED. 2. IT TRANSPIRES AT THE OUTSET THAT THIS ASSESSEES INSTANT APPEAL SUFFERS FROM 19 DAYS DELAY STATED TO BE ATTRIBUTAB LE TO THE REASON(S) BEYOND HIS CONTROL AS PER CONDONATION PETITION/AFFIDAVIT. NO REBUTTAL HAS COME FROM THE DEPARTM ENTAL SIDE. THE IMPUGNED DELAY IS CONDONED THEREFORE. ITA NO. 953/HYD/2018 :- 2 -: 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS IN THE INSTANT APPEAL: 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ERRED IN UPHO LDING THE ADDITION OF RS.24,17,633/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDINGS AND INCOME THERE FROM IN SUPPORT OF THE SOURCES FOR AVAILABILITY OF MONEY TOWARDS EXPENDITU RE INCURRED ON ASSESSEE'S SHARE OF CONSIDERATION PAID AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT CUM GPA ON 15-12-2008 AND ACCORDINGLY THE LEARNED C.I.T(APPEALS) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE SUMMARILY REJECTED THE EVIDENCE AND EXPLANATIONS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED TH E ASSESSMENT WITHOUT AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSES SEE FOR FURNISHING EXPLANATIONS AND EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE SOURCE S TOWARDS ASSESSEE'S SHARE OF CONSIDERATION PAID AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT CUM GPA ON 15-12-2008 AND EVEN WITHOUT CO NSIDERING THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.80C AND ACCORDINGLY THE LEARN ED C.I.T(APPEALS) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE SUMMARILY REJECTED THE EVIDENCE AND EXPLANATIONS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE CIT(A)S DETAILED DISCUSSION AFFIRMING THE ASS ESSING OFFICERS ACTION MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION READS AS UNDER: VIII) GROUND NOS.2 AND 4 RELATES TO AGRICULTURAL I NCOME AND THEIR SOURCES. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, GROUNDS OF APPEAL, ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT WERE PERUSED. IT IS SEEN FROM THE SUBMISSION FILED IN APPEAL THAT AN AGRICULTURAL INC OME CERTIFICATES OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF TELANGANA WER E FURNISHED. SCANNED CERTIFICATE OF ONE SUCH AGRICULTURAL INCOME CERTIFICATE IS BELOW: ITA NO. 953/HYD/2018 :- 3 -: IT IS CLEARLY STATED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CERTIFICA TE AS FOLLOWS: THIS CERTIFICATE IS NOT VALID FOR ANY CIVIL, CRIMI NAL CASES AND ANY OTHER PURPOSE EXCEPT TO OBTAIN BANK LOAN SUBJEC T TO RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE BANK. HENCE, THESE AGRICULTURAL INCOME CERTIFICATES WERE ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BANK LOANS AND NOT VALID FOR ANY CIVIL P ROCEEDINGS OR ITA NO. 953/HYD/2018 :- 4 -: CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THESE CERTIFICATES DO NOT CARRY MERIT IN DIRECT TAX PROCEEDINGS WHICH ARE CIVIL PROCEEDIN GS. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO FROM THE DETAILS , IT IS APPARENT THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT HAVE THAT AMOUN T OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO BE IN THE POSSESSION OF A SUBSTANTIAL AMO UNT OF MONEY. THE AO IN HIS ORDER HAS BROUGHT OUT THE DETAILS. THE EX PLANATIONS OFFERED IN APPEAL ARE CLEARLY IN THE NATURE OF AN AFTER-THO UGHT. THE AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDINGS AND THE APPELLANT RETURN INCOMES DO NOT PROVIDE FOR SUCH LARGE AMOUNT OF CASH WHICH WAS WIT H THE APPELLANT. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SHOWN THE PROOF OF W HAT CROP WAS GROWN ON THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. FURTHER, THE LANDS ARE NOT IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT, NO PROOF WAS PRODUCED FOR PERSONA L SAVINGS. IN THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME CERTIFICATES WHICH HAVE BEEN ME NTIONED SUPRA, IT IS CLEAR THAT THESE ARE NOT FOR ANY PURPOSE, EXCEPT TO OBTAIN BANK LOAN SUBJECT TO RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE RELEVANT BA NK. WITH REFERENCE TO THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELL ANT THEY SHOULD BE VIEWED WITH REFERENCE TO THE FACTUAL MATRIX FROM CA SE TO CASE. THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT AND THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THIS CASE ARE DIFFERENT AND HENCE DISTINGUISHABL E. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS, ISSUE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT C ASE, GROUND NOS.2 AND 4 IN APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. VII) GROUND NOS.3, RELATES TO PROVIDING OF OPPORTUN ITY. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT PROCEDURAL/TECHNICAL M ATTERS DO NOT MATTER AS' MUCH AS SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW. HENC E, THE PROVISION OF SECTION 292BWHICH IS EXTRACTED BELOW IS RELEVANT. S ECTION 292B STATES AS FOLLOWS: NO RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSMENT, NOTICE, SUMMONS O R OTHER PROCEEDINQ, FURNISHED OR MADE OR ISSUED OR TAKEN OR PURPORTED TO HAVE BEEN FURNISHED OR MADE OR ISSUED OR TAKEN I N PURSUANCE OF ANU OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHAL L BE INVALID OR SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE INVALID MERELY BY REASON OF A NY MISTAKE, DEFECT OR OMISSION IN SUCH RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESS MENT, NOTICE, SUMMONS OR OTHER PROCEEDINGS IF SUCH RETURN OF INCO ME, ASSESSMENT, NOTICE, SUMMONS OR OTHER PROCEEDING IS IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT IN CONFORMITY WITH OR ACCORDIN G TO THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THIS ACT. AS CAP BE SEEN FROM PLAIN READING OF SECTION 292B, IT IS CLEAR THAT AN ACTION TAKEN IN PURSUANCE OF ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT SHALL BE VALID. MERELY ANY MISTAKE, REASON, DEF ECT OR OMISSION IN SUCH AN ASSESSMENT, INCOME OR ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT SHALL NOT BE HELD INVALID DUE TO ANY SUCH MISTAKE OR DEFE CT OR REASON OR OMISSION. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292B ARE CLEAR AND THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT IS MANIFESTED IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE SAID SE CTION OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUE, IT I S SEEN THAT EVEN IF THERE IS SOME TECHNICAL OR PROCEDURAL OMISSION A PR OCEEDING UNDER THE ITA NO. 953/HYD/2018 :- 5 -: INCOME TAX ACT CANNOT BE HELD AS INVALID. HENCE, GR OUND NO.3 IN APPEAL PRESSED BY THE APPELLANT IS DISMISSED. 5. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE CASE RECORDS THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE OWNERSHIP OF THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS PER SE WHICH COULD GIVE RISE TO THE INCOME OF RS.24,17,633/- CLAIMED AS EXEMPT U/S. 10(1) OF THE AC T. NO REBUTTAL HAS COME FROM THE ASSESSEES SIDE IN THE CASE FILE. WE THUS CONFIRM BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTION MAKING THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE. 6. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED IN ABOVE TERM S. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 ST JULY, 2021 SD/- SD/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (S.S.G ODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER HYDERABAD, DATED: 01-07-2021 TNMM ITA NO. 953/HYD/2018 :- 6 -: COPY TO : 1.GUTTA NARASIMHA REDDY, H.NO.8-101, RAMANNAPET (V & M), TELANGANA STATE. 2.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SURYAPET. 3.CIT(APPEALS)-3, HYDERABAD. 4.PR.CIT-3, HYDERABAD. 5.D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6.GUARD FILE.