Sri M. Aswartha Narayana, Hyderabad V. Commissioner of Income Ta - III, Hyderabad

ITA 971/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 97122514 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G APARNA RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A'(SMC), HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.971/HYD/14 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 SHRI M.ASWATHA NARAYANA, NANDYAL. (PAN - AATPM 6573 D) V/S. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2, NANDYAL (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : S HRI A.V.RAGHURAM RESPONDENT BY : SMT. G.APARNA RAO DATE OF HEARING 27 .0 3 .201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27.03.2015 O R D E R THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) I II , HYDERABAD DATED 1 4 . 3 .2014 PASSED UNDER S.263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVING INCOME FROM COTTON BUSINESS AS WELL AS AGRICULTURE. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED BY HIM ON 3.9.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,51,860 AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.48,000. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORIGINALLY COMPLETED UND ER S.143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 16.3.2012, THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.5,83,360, AFTER MAKING MAINLY AN ADDITION OF RS.2,13,000 ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER S.40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. THE RECORD OF TH E SAID ASSESSMENT CAME TO BE SUBSEQUENTLY EXAMINED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER AND ON SUCH EXAMINATION, S HE FOUND THAT CERTAIN ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT ITA NO. 97 1/HYD/2014 SHRI M.ASWATHA NARAYANA, NANDYAL. 2 PROPERLY VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THESE ISSUES WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT CAUSING PROPER AND ADEQUATE ENQUIRIES, AS REQUIRED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. SHE THEREFORE, ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER S.263 REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO OFFER ITS EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER S.143(3) SHOULD NOT BE REVISED. THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER, AND ACCORDINGLY, SHE SET ASIDE THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER S.143(3) WITH A DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT, AFTER CARRYING OUT NECESSARY ENQUIRIES ON THE ISSUES, AS POINTED OUT BY HER IN THE ORDER PASS ED UNDER S.263. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LE ARNED COMMISSIONER PASSED UNDER S.263, ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ORDER PASS ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER UNDER S.143(3) IS REVISED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VIDE HER IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED UNDER S.263 ON THE GROUND THAT PROPER AND SUFFICIENT ENQUIRIES, AS WARRANTED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , WERE NOT CONDUCTED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. SUCH ENQUIRIES WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE ALSO SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER IN THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER S.2 63 AS WELL AS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED UNDER S.263. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE ON THE BASIS OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT SUCH ENQUIRIES IN FACT WERE CONDUCTED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER S.143(3). IT, THEREFORE, FOLLOWS THAT THE ITA NO. 97 1/HYD/2014 SHRI M.ASWATHA NARAYANA, NANDYAL. 3 ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT CONDUCTING PROPER AND ADEQ UATE ENQUIRIES AS WARRANTED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY HIM UNDER S.143(3) THUS WAS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, CALLING FOR REVISION UNDER S.263 BY THE LEARNED COM MISSIONER. I THEREFORE, FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DISALLOWED COMMISSIONER UNDER S.263 AND UPHOLDING THE SAME, I DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COUR T ON 27 TH MARCH, 2015 SD/ - ( P.M.JAGTAP ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT/ - 27 TH MARCH, 201 5 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI M.ASWATHA NARAYANA (NANDYAL) C/O.SHRI PUSHYAM KIRAN, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO. 1 ST FLOOR, UMA ENCLAVE, ROAD NO.9, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD . 2 . INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 NANDYAL 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX III, HYDERABAD 4. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S