Prakash Kumar Desai , Mysore V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax , Central Circle, Tirupati

ITA 969/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5690 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T. SUNIL GOUTAM

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.969/HYD/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Prakash Kumar Desai, Mysore [PAN: ABOPD7014J] Vs Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Tirupati (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri B.Shantikumar, AR For Revenue : Shri T.Sunil Goutam, DR Date of Hearing : 14-12-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 23-12-2021 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for AY.2011-12 arises from the CIT(A)-3, Visakhapatnam’s order dated 27-04-2017, Corrigendum dt.03-01-2019 passed in case No.530 / 2015-16 / CIT(A)-3 / VSP / 2017-18, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal: “1.The corrigendum order dt.03.01.2019 of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. ITA No. 969/Hyd/2019 :- 2 -: 2.The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the protective addition of Rs.85,89,303/- made by the assessing officer in the hands of the appellant towards income estimated @5% on the accommodation bills alleged to be provided by the appellant to M/s.Peram Associates towards transportation and trading in in respect of ore. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the protective addition of Rs.4,00,00,000/- made by the assessing officer in the hands of the appellant towards cash seized during the search operation conducted in the premises of M/s.Peram Associates”. 3. It emerged during the course of hearing that the learned lower authorities have made protective assessment in assessee’s case. And also that this tribunal’s co-ordinate bench’s order in assessee’s corresponding penalty appeal ITA No.755/Hyd/2020 heard on 06-12-2021 has restored the Revenue’s substantive grievance back to the Assessing Officer to ascertain and decide it afresh in light of the substantive assessment on the very issue(s), if any. We thus adopt judicial consistency to restore the assessee’s instant quantum appeal back to the Assessing Officer in light of the very directions. Ordered accordingly. 4. This assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 23 r d December, 2021 Sd/- Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (S.S.GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 23-12-2021 TNMM ITA No. 969/Hyd/2019 :- 3 -: Copy to : 1.Prakash Kumar Desai, H.No.B-1, HIG, Kalapataru, 6 th ‘B’ Main Road, Ramakrishna Nagar, ‘K’ Block, Mysore. 2.The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Tirupati. 3.CIT(Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam. 4.Pr.CIT(Central), Visakhapatnam. 5.D.R. ITAT, Hyderabad. 6.Guard File.