DCIT, Circle-1, Karimnagar V. M/s Maithili Adiya Transport, Karimnagar

ITA 966/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7664 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KIRAN KATTA
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Retraction; Revised return

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICAL MEMBER ITA.NO.966/HYD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 DCIT, CIRCLE-1 KARIMNAGAR VS. M/S. MAITHILI ADITYA TRANSPORT, KARIMNAGAR PAN AAOFM2042C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR REVENUE : MR. KIRAN KATTA FOR ASSESSEE : -NONE- DATE OF HEARING : 22.09.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.09.2014 ORDER PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF CIT(A), VIJAYAWADA DATED 10.02.2014 FOR TH E A.Y. 2008-09. THE ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REFERENCE TO REDUC TION OF ESTIMATION BY THE LD. CIT(A) FROM 5% TO 3%. THE REV ENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT TH E PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM DETRACTED FROM HIS OWN STATEME NT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY U/S.133A. 3. THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN GIVING A FINDING THAT THE A.O. WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE OR FINDING HELD THAT THERE WERE DISCREPANCIES IN THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THERE WERE SURVEY OPERATIONS IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AND DURING THE COURSE OF STATEMENT THE PARTNER 2 ITA.NO.966/HYD/2014 M/S. MAITHILI ADITYA TRANSPORT, KARIMNAGAR. ADMITTED TO HAVE OFFERED INCOME UP TO RS.1.10 CRORE S FOR A.YS. 2008-09 TO 2010-11 AND ADDITION AT 5% ON GROSS RECE IPTS FOR A.Y. 2011-2012. SUBSEQUENTLY, HOWEVER, ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY REVISED RETURN AS IT SEEMS TO HAVE RETRACTED FROM T HE STATEMENT. HOWEVER, A.O. BROUGHT TO TAX INCOME ESTIMATED AT 5% OF GROSS RECEIPTS OVER AND ABOVE THE BOOKS RESULTS AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.36,66,666 BY TAKING THE TOTAL INCOME TO RS.66,71 ,306. ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE SAME BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMIT TED THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL TO MAKE ESTIMATION AT THE TIME OF SU RVEY AND RELIED ON VARIOUS CASE LAW. LD. CIT(A) WHILE PARTLY ACCEPT ING THE CONTENTIONS HOWEVER, RESTRICTED ESTIMATION TO 3% BA SED ON THE COORDINATE BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF MR. B.RAMA KRISHNAIAH IN ITA. NO. 1152 & 1153/HYD/2009 WHICH ITSELF FOLLOWED HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. S . KHADER KHAN & SONS. REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED. 3. ASSESSEE WAS NOT REPRESENTED BY ANY PERSON NOR THERE WAS ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT AND THERE IS NO RES PONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED. HENCE, THE CASE WAS HEARD EX-PARTE A SSESSEE AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED D.R. 4. WE ARE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE GRIEVANCE OF TH E REVENUE. THE GROUNDS ITSELF ARE WRONGLY TAKEN AS CA N BE SEEN FROM THE GROUNDS ITSELF, WHICH DID NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUD ICATION. EVEN THE ISSUE OF DETRACTION(SIC) FROM THE STATEMENT IS NOT PART OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AS A.O. HIMSELF REJECTED TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATED THE INCOME AT 5% AND ADDED I T TO THE INCOME ALREADY RETURNED AT RS.30,04,640. IF THE A.O . ESTIMATED AT RS.36,66,666 AS TOTAL INCOME, BEING 5% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS THE ISSUE WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT BUT A.O. ADDED THE SAME TO THE BOOK RESULTS THEREBY, MAKING DOUBLE ADDITION. LD. C IT(A) IN HER WISDOM REDUCED THE ESTIMATION TO 3% WITHOUT CONSIDE RING THE 3 ITA.NO.966/HYD/2014 M/S. MAITHILI ADITYA TRANSPORT, KARIMNAGAR. DOUBLE ADDITION PART. WE WERE NOT INFORMED WHETHER ASSESSEE ALSO PREFERRED ANY APPEAL ON THIS. HOWEVER, WE FIND NO M ERIT IN REVENUE GROUNDS AS THE ISSUE OF RETRACTION FROM THE STATEMENT WAS NOT AN ISSUE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND WITH REFEREN CE TO GROUND NO.3, THE A.O. HIMSELF HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE RE ARE DISCREPANCIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATE D THE INCOME. HENCE, REVENUE CANNOT ATTRIBUTE THAT TO THE FINDING S OF THE LD. CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THAT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT I N REVENUE APPEAL. HOWEVER, THIS ORDER SHOULD NOT BE COME IN THE WAY O F ASSESSEES APPEAL IF ANY, PENDING. TO THE EXTENT OF THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE REVENUE, THE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. THERE IS NO ORD ER AS TO COSTS. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.09.2014. SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (B.RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 25 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 VBP/- COPY TO 1. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NEAR BUS STAND, KARIMNAGAR. 2. M/S. MAITHILI ADITYA TRANSPORT, 9-1-193/1A, BHAGATHNAGAR, KARIMNAGAR. 3. CIT(A), VIJAYAWADA 4. CIT-II, HYDERABAD 5. D.R. B BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD.