Keerthi Subba Rao, Rajahmundry V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle , Rajahmundry

ITSSA 2/VIZ/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8630 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K SONAWAL
• Keywords: Business income; Search and seizure; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO , HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT (SS) A NO S . 0 2 TO 0 4 / VIZ /201 8 (ASST. YEAR : 20 12 - 13 TO 20 14 - 1 5 ) KEERTHI SUBBA RAO, D.NO. 80 - 16 - 29, A.V.A. ROAD, RAJAHMUNDRY, E.D. DISTRICT. V S . A CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY . PAN NO. ACOPK 0638 G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.V.N. HARI ADV OCATE . DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI D.K. SONAWAL SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 02 / 0 4 /201 9 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 / 0 4 /201 9 . O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE APPEAL S BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDER S OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 3 , VISAKHAPATNAM , ALL DATED 26 / 12 /201 7 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 20 12 - 13 TO 20 14 - 1 5 . SINCE, FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND ISSUES ARE COMMON, THEY A RE CLUBBED, HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER . 2. THERE IS A DELAY OF 19 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEALS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE AFFIDAVITS. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE 2 IT (SS) A NO. 0 2 TO 0 4 /VIZ/201 8 ( KEERTHI SUBBA RAO ) AFFIDAVITS AND FIND THAT THERE IS A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NON - FILING THE APPEALS IN TIME. WE FIND THAT IT IS A FIT CASE TO CONDONE THE DELAY. ACCORDINGLY, DELAY IS CONDONED. 3 . FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, GROUNDS RAISED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 ARE TAKEN , WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - 1. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) - 3, VISAKHAPATNAM SHOULD NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE ORDERS OF ASSESSING AUTHORITY VIZ., ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, VIZ., ASS ISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY ACCEPTED THE INCOME AND PASSED ORDER U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 153C OF INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961. THE INCOME IS OFFERED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WHICH INCLUDES BUSINESS INCOME, HOUSE PROPERTY ETC., IN THIS APPEAL IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE APPELLANT DISCLOSED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME IN VIEW OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND HIS CONTROL. 3. THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY U/S.143(3) R.W.S.153(C) O F I.T.ACT, 1961 IS ILLEGAL AND IMPROPER. 4. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS NOT CORRECT IN REJECTING THE PLEA OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2012 - 2013. 5. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) - 3, VISAKHAPATNAM IS ALSO NOT CORRECT IN REJECTING THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.1,83,630/ - OFFERED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 6. WITHOUT ASSIGNING THE GOOD REASONS THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY SHOULD NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. 7. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE AP PELLANT THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) - 3, VISAKHAPATNAM SHOULD HAVE DELETED THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AS ARGUED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. 8. ANY OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3 IT (SS) A NO. 0 2 TO 0 4 /VIZ/201 8 ( KEERTHI SUBBA RAO ) 4 . FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVING INCOME FROM TRADING IN SUBMERSIBLE PUMPS AND MOTORS . A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION IN THE CASE OF M/S. GSL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, RAJAHMUNDRY WAS CONDUCTED ON 25/07/2013 . DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, CERTAIN INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IN THE FORM OF ANNEXURE - 1/ARB/1 WAS FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SRI ADAPA RAMBABU , SECRETARY OF M/S. GSL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'ACT') ON 29/02/2016. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON EXA MINING OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL VIDE ANNEXURE - 1/ARB/1, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DETAILS FILED HAS FOUND THAT NO ADDITIONAL RECEIPTS OTHER THAN THE ADDITIONAL INCOME ADMITTED. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. AGGRIEVED , ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED ALL THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSEE. 6 . ON BEING AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS T RIBUNAL. 4 IT (SS) A NO. 0 2 TO 0 4 /VIZ/201 8 ( KEERTHI SUBBA RAO ) 7 . LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WHEREAS LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FOUND THAT NO ADDITIONAL RECEIPTS OTHER THAN THE INCOME ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE, HE ACCEPTED THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEA L, LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED ALL THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: - 4. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE GROUNDS OF APPE AL, FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE DECISION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE APPELLANT HAS RAISED 4 COMMON GROUNDS FOR 3 ASST. YEARS I.E., 2012 - 13, 2013 - 14 & 2014 - 15. GROUND NO. (1) IS A LEGAL GROUND CHALLENGING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C OF THE ACT. GROUND NO. (2) IS ON INADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY. GROUND NO. (3) IS ON MERITS AND GROUND NO. (4) IS A GENERAL GROUND FOR WHICH NO ADJUDICATION IS REQUIRED. I SHALL NOW PROCEED TO THE DISPOSAL OF THE A P P EAL AS UNDER : 4.1 LEGAL GROUND - (GROUND NO.1): - 4.1(A) IT IS THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 153C OF THE ACT IS ILLEGAL AND IMPROPER. THE FACTS REGARDING THE ISSUE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. GSL EDUCATIONAL SOC IETY, RAJAHMUNDRY, INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IN ANNEXURE - 1/ARB/1 WAS FOUND AND SEIZED. THIS MATERIAL WAS BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT WHEREIN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT WAS MENTIONED AGAINST TWO AMOUNTS WITH THE DATES. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE PAGE IS SCANNED AND PASTED 5 IT (SS) A NO. 0 2 TO 0 4 /VIZ/201 8 ( KEERTHI SUBBA RAO ) HEREUNDER FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLARITY. 4.1(B) BASED ON THE ABOVE INFORMATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S.153C OF THE ACT. I HAVE PERUSED THE DOCUMENT AND CONVINCED THAT THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT APPEARING IN THE SEIZED DOCUMEN T PRIMA - FACIE IS INCRIMINATING IN NATURE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY ISSUED NOTICE U/S.153C OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY ADDITION SINCE THE APPELLANT HIMSELF HAD ADMITTED ADD ITIONAL INCOME OF RS.1,00,00,000/ - AS APPEARING IN THE LOOSE SHEET AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 AND HAS NOT MADE ANY ADDITION BASED ON THE SEIZED MATERIAL. ACCORDINGLY, I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. 4.2 INADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY - GROUND NO.(2): - 4.2(A) IT IS THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT THAT NO PROPER OPPO RTUNITY WAS ACCORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DIRECTED HIM TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ROUNDED OFF THE FIGURES ON A HIGHER SIDE. 4.2(B) I HAVE PERUSED THE STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ASSESSMENT RECORDS. I DO NOT FIND ANYTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLING FOR THE RETURN OF INCOME WHILE ISSUING NOTICE U/S.153C OF THE ACT. REGARDING THE GRIEVANCE OF ROUNDING OFF OF FIGURES IS CONCERNED, THE APPELLANT HAS 6 IT (SS) A NO. 0 2 TO 0 4 /VIZ/201 8 ( KEERTHI SUBBA RAO ) SHOWN THE DETAILS OF INCOME AS UNDER. INCOME SHOWN AMOUNT RS. SALARY 72,000 HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME 85,515 BUSINESS INCOME 24,100 OTHER - BANK INTEREST 2,012 TOTAL 1, 83 , 630 SELF ASSESSMENT TAX PAID 760 4.2(C) IT IS SEEN THAT AFTER FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE APPELLANT HIMSELF HAD REALIZED THAT THE INCOME IS FAR BELOW THE LIMITS AND THEREAFTER ADMITTED AN INCOME OF RS.1,83,630/ - AND THE APPELLANT HAD STATED THAT THE DISCLOSURE OF ADDITIONAL INCOME IS MADE IN VIEW OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES BEYON D HIS CONTROL. IN SUCH EVENT, I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON WHY THE APPELLANT IS AGGRIEVED FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME AND GRIEVANCES REGARDING ROUNDING OFF OF FIGURES. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS DISMISSED. 4.3 GROUNDS ON MERITS - GR OUND NO. (3): - THE APPELLANT HAD CONTESTED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.1,83,630/ - . THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS HIMSELF VOLUNTARILY ADMITTED THE INCOME BY FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S.153C OF THE ACT. HE ALSO ADMITTED THAT HE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DUE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND HIS CONTROL. WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES MADE HIM TO DISCLOSE THE ADDITIONAL INCOME IS BETTER KNOWN TO HIM. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS, THE APPELLANT CANNOT AGITATE ON VOLUNTARY ACTION FOR REDRESSAL. THEREFORE, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS REJECTED. 5. FINDINGS GROUND NOS. (1), (2) A (3) ARE DECIDED AGAINST THE APPELLANT AS THE ORD PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONFIRMED. GROUND NO. (4) IS GENERAL IN NATURE, HENCE, NOT ADJUDICA TED. 6. CONCLUSION: IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 10 . WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED THE LEGAL ISSUES AND MERITS OF THE CASE. WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE 7 IT (SS) A NO. 0 2 TO 0 4 /VIZ/201 8 ( KEERTHI SUBBA RAO ) ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THUS, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 11. SO FAR AS IT (SS) NOS. 3 & 4/VIZ/2018 ARE CONCERNED, FACTS AND ISSUES ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS INVOLVED IN IT (SS) NO.2/VIZ/2018. IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION ABOVE, THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALSO DISMISSED. 1 2 . IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON TH IS 1 0 T H DAY OF APRIL , 201 9 . ( D.S. SUNDER SINGH ) ( V. DURGA RAO ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 1 0 T H APRIL , 201 9 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE KEERTHI SUBBA RAO, D.NO. 80 - 16 - 29, A.V.A. ROAD, RAJAHMUNDRY, E.D. DISTRICT. 2. THE REVENUE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY . 3. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. THE CIT(A) - 3, VISAKHAPATNAM. 5. THE D.R . , VISAKHAPATNAM. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (VUKKEM RAMBABU) SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM.