E. Reddy Shekar, Hyd, Hyderabad V. ACIT, Central Circle-5 Hyd, Hyderabad

ITSSA 1/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7827 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-03-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 22-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y V S T SAI
• Assessee Lawyers: C P RAMASWAMI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; FORM 2B
• Section: 158BC; 158BFA; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B', HYDERABAD SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT (SS) A NO. 01 /HYD/201 5 BLOCK PERIOD: 1990 - 91 TO 2000 - 01 E. REDDY SHEKAR, HYDERABAD. PAN BJCPS 0874E VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5 , HYDERABAD . APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY: SHRI C.P. RAMASWAMI REVENUE BY: SHRI Y.V.S.T. SAI DATE OF HEARING: 05 /03/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24 /07/2020 O R D E R PER SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, A.M.: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) IN ITA NO. 488/2013 - 14/CIT(A) - 12/HYD/2014 - 15, DATED 30/1/2015 PASSED U/S 250(6) R.W.S. 144, 158BC OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL AND THEY ARE EXTRACTED AS BELOW FOR REFERENCE: - 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX IS ERRONEOUS TO THE EXTENT IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE APPELLANT. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DISPOSING THE APPEAL EX - PARTE WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE AP PELLANT. 2 IT(SS)A NO. 01/HYD/2015 E. REDDY SHEKAR, HYD. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE GROUND RAISED BY THE APPELLANT REGARDING VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT MADE OUT OF TIME ALLOWED. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIR MING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HOLDING THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE SHARE CAPITAL OF SOUTHERN UDYANS LTD. BY 32 SHAREHOLDERS AGGREGATING TO RSAO,2 0 , 000 / - REPRESENTS THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HOLDING THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE SHARE CAPITAL OF SOUTHERN CONTINENTAL CONTRACTORS LTD. BY 24 SHAREHOLDERS AGGREGATING TO RS.16,00,000/ - R EPRESENTS THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING, OFFICER IN HOLDING THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE SHARE CAPITAL OF SOUTHERN NET WORKS PVT. LTD., BY 14 SHAREHOLDE RS AGGREGATING TO RS.12,00,000/ - REPRESENTS THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 7. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HOLDING THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE SHARE CAPITAL OF HITECH CARDS P VT. LTD. BY 4 SHAREHOLDERS AGGREGATING TO RS.2,50, 000 / - REPRESENTS THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 8. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HOLDING THAT THE CASH CREDITS IN THE BOOKS OF SO UTHERN CONTINENTAL CONTRACTORS LTD., ON VARIOUS DATES AGGREGATING TO RS.24,47,050/ - REPRESENT THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 9. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING THE CASH FOU ND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OF RS.1,39,370/ - AS THE UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 10. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,25, 000 / - BEING THE INVESTMENT MADE BY APPELLANT'S WIFE IN THE PURCHAS E OF LAND AS THE UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 3 IT(SS)A NO. 01/HYD/2015 E. REDDY SHEKAR, HYD. 11. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 158BFA OF RS.2,74,570/ - . 12. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN REAL ESTATE BUSINESS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME IN FORM 2B FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD ON 3/8/2001 ADMITTING HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS RS. 55,71,370/ - PURSUANT TO SEARCH U/S.132 OF THE ACT IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF M/S SOUTHERN CONTINENTAL CONTRACTS LTD AND SOUTHERN UDYAN LTD ON 25/1/2000 AND 14/3/2000 RESPECTIVELY WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE IS THE CHAIRMAN AND THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 144 R.W.S 158 OF THE ACT ON 27/2/2002 WHEREIN THE LD.AO MADE ADDITION TOWARDS UNDISCLOSED CASH FOR RS. 1,39,370/ - , INVESTMENT IN THE FORM OF EQUITY SHARE CAPITAL AND UNSECURED LOANS ETC., IN SOUTHERN GROUP OF COMPANIES AMOUNTING RS. 96,17,050/ - AND INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROP ERTIES IN THE FORM OF LAND FOR RS. 5,49,000/ - AGGREGATING TO RS. 1,03,05,420/ - . 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE LD. AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PASSED AN EX - PARTE ORDER IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO SO THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN EFFECTIVELY PURSUE HIS APPEAL BEFORE THEM. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSION OF T HE LD. AR AND REQUESTED FOR CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES 4 IT(SS)A NO. 01/HYD/2015 E. REDDY SHEKAR, HYD. BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO CO - OPERATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS AND NEVER TURNED UP ON THE DATES OF THE HEARING. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN TH E SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR. FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) IT IS QUITE APPARENT THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAD POSTED THE CASE FOR HEARING AS MANY AS TEN OCCASIONS. HOWEVER, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS AR APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). IT ALSO APPEARS TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CO - OPERATED EVEN BEFORE THE LD. AO IN THE PROCEEDINGS. IN THIS SITUATION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR. HOWEVER, KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE QUANTUM AND NATURE OF ADDITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, W E HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. WE ALSO HEREBY DIRECT THE ASSESSEE AND HIS COUNSEL TO PROMPTLY CO - OPERATE BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THEIR PROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH THEY SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH MERIT AND LAW BASED ON THE MATERIALS BEFORE THEM. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 6. BEFORE PARTING, IT IS WORTHWHILE TO MENTION THAT THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED AFTER 90 DAYS OF HEARING THE APPEAL, WHICH IS THOUGH AGAINST THE USUAL NORMS, W E FIND IT APPROPRIATE, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE EXTRA - ORDINARY SITUATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE LOCK - DOWN DUE TO COVID - 19 PANDEMIC. WHILE DOING SO, W E HAVE RELIED IN THE D ECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. JSW LTD. IN ITA NO.6264/M/2018 AND 6103/M/2018 FOR AY 2013 - 14 ORDER DATED 14TH MAY 2020. 5 IT(SS)A NO. 01/HYD/2015 E. REDDY SHEKAR, HYD. 7. APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREIN ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 24 TH JULY, 2020. SD/ - (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 24 TH JULY, 2020. OKK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. E. REDDY SHEKAR, C/O SRI S. RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO. 102, SHRIYAS ELEGANCE, 3 - 6 - 643, STREET NO. 9, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD 500 029. 2. A CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5 , POSNETT BHAVAN, RAMKOTI, HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(A) 12, HYDERABAD. 4. 5. CIT (CENTRAL) , HYDERABAD. THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6. GUARD FILE