N Andalamma, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Hyderabad

ITSSA 51/HYD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9621 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-11-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 15-06-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Documents seized
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD BEFORE : SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, A.M. AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J.M. I.T.(SS)A.NO.51/HYD/2009 BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1990 TO 12.06.2000 SMT. N. ANDALAMMA HYDERABAD PAN AENPN1346K VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1) HYDERABAD (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR APPLICANT : SHRI V. RAGHAVENDRA RAO (A.R.) FOR RESPONDENT : SHRI G.M. BELAGALI (D.R.) DATE OF HEARING : 16.09.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27.11.2013 ORDER PER SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J.M. BRIEF FACTS OF THE ABOVE APPEALS ARE THAT ORIGINALLY IT(SS)A.NO.25/HYD/2007 IN THE CASE OF SM T. ANDALAMMA LR TO N. NARASIMHA AND IT(SS)A.NO.51/HYD/2009 IN THE CASE OF SMT. N. ANDALAMMA WERE PARTLY ALLOWED BY B BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 9 TH MARCH, 2012. ON WHICH, THE ASSESSEE FILED MA.NO. 109 & 110/HYD/2012 SEEKIN G FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER AND THE TRIBUNAL VID E ORDER DATED 24.08.2012 RECALLED THE ORDER AND DIREC TED THE REGISTRY TO FIX THE APPEALS FOR HEARING ON 04.12.2012. HOWEVER, IT(SS)A.NO.25/HYD/2007 HAS ALREADY BEEN DISPOSED OF BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER 2 IT(SS)A.NO.51/HYD/2009 SMT. N. ANDALAMMA, HYDERABAD DATED 22 ND MARCH, 2013. THEREFORE, THE ONLY APPEAL THAT IS LEFT FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IS IT(SS)A.NO.51/HYD / 2009. 1.1. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE PRESENT APPEAL (IT(SS)A.NO.51/HYD/2009) ARE THAT T HE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD 'B' BENCH PASSED A COMMON ORDER IN THE CASE OF SMT. ANDALAMMA AND HER SPOUSE SRI N NARASIMHA ON 09/03/2012 VIDE IT(SS)A.NO.25/HYD/ 2007 AND IT(SS)A.NO.51/HYD/09. THE SAID APPEALS ARE SET ASIDE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER IN ANOTHER APPEAL IN THE CASE OF THE VENDEE M /S SAI SREE PROJECTS (P) LIMITED DT 10/02/2012 IN IT(S S)A NOS. 26 & 27/HYD/2007. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAD ORIGINALLY FILED THE APPEAL ON 15-06-2009 RAISING 12 GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED ON 27-04-2010. LATER CONCISE AND REVISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE BEEN FILED ON 30-04-2010 AT THE INSTANC E OF THE HON 'BLE TRIBUNAL. GROUNDS WERE TAKEN AGAINS T THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE RELEVANT GROUND IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW FOR READ Y REFERENCE. GROUND NO.2A OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS AS UNDER : '2A THE DCIT, CC-1, (AO) WHO PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER LACKED JURISDICTION BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF THE SATISFACTION REQUIRED 3 IT(SS)A.NO.51/HYD/2009 SMT. N. ANDALAMMA, HYDERABAD U/S. 158BD OF THE IT ACT RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SRI AMBATI SATYANARAYANA, THE SEARCHED PERSON, THAT THERE WAS ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE DISCOVERED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH OF PREMISES OF SRI AMBATI SATYANARAYANA, NOR WAS THERE ANY HANDING OVER OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS SEIZED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH.' 4. IN THE CONCISE AND REVISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL GROUND NO. 2 IS AS UNDER : 'THE ASSESSMENT IS NOT VALID IN LAW BECAUSE THE SATISFACTION REQUIRED U/S 158BD HAS NOT BEEN REACHE D OR RECORDED BY THE AO HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE SEARCHED PERSON, SRI AMBATI SATYANARAYANA GARU, THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MANISH MAHESWARI (289 ITR 341) IS APPLICABLE.' 5. THE ASSESSEE FILED A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION STATING THAT THE ABOVE GROUND RELATING TO JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY THE AO HAS NOT BEEN DEALT WITH IN THE COMMON ORDER OF THE HON'BLE BENCH. THEREFORE THERE HAS CREPT IN A MISTAKE INTO THE ORD ER OF THE HON'BLE BENCH IN SO FAR AS THE JURISDICTIONAL GROUND WHICH GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER HAS BEE N OMITTED TO BE CONSIDERED. IT WAS THEREFORE PRAYED T HAT THE GROUND REGARDING JURISDICTION (PARA 4 HEREINABO VE) BE TAKEN UP FOR DISPOSAL BY AMENDING THE ABOVE ORDE R OF THE HON'BLE BENCH. 6. WE HAVE RECALLED OUR ORDER DATED 9 TH MARCH, 2012 PURSUANT TO MA.NO. 109 & 110/HYD/2012 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEA LS 4 IT(SS)A.NO.51/HYD/2009 SMT. N. ANDALAMMA, HYDERABAD AFTER HEARING THE CASE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : 1. PA RANI AND ANOTHER VS. ACIT 9 ITR (TRIBU.) 798 (CHENNAI) 2. AUTO FINANCE (P) LTD. VS. JCIT 300 ITR 83 (DEL.) (H.C.) 3. SUBHAS CHANDRA BHANIRAMKA VS. ACIT 320 ITR 549 (CAL.) (H.C.) 4. MANOJ AGGARWAL VS. DCIT 113 ITD 377 (S.B.) (DEL.) 5. CIT VS. RADHEY SHYAM BANSAL & OTHERS 337 ITR 217 (DEL.) (H.C.) 6. KRISHNA SUGAR CORPORATION VS. DCIT 133 TTJ 33 (LUCKNOW) (TRIBUNAL) 7. CHANDRAKANTBHAI AMRATLAL THAKKAR VS. DCIT 337 ITR 258 (GUJ.) 8. INDU BARUA VS. CWT 125 ITR 442-443 (CAL.) (H.C.) 9. EXTRACT FROM CIVIL PROCEDURE COURT - ORDER 5 RULE 15. 7. THE LEARNED D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND, FURNISHED CO PY OF THE NOTE IN THE FORM OF ORDER SHEET RELATING TO SMT ANDALAMMA, H.NO.11-6-192/3, NAMPALLY, HYDERABAD MADE BY THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, HYDERABAD AND SUBMITTED THAT SATISFACTION HAS BEEN RECORDED AND T HE SAME HAS BEEN CLEARLY STATED IN RED INK BY THE DCIT ON 09.11.2001. 8. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ORDER SHEET ENTRY CLEARLY STATES THAT PROOF OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION IN THE CASE OF SMT. N. ANDALAMMA AS RECORDED ON 09.11.2001 HENCE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED HIS SATISFA CTION ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME BEFORE 5 IT(SS)A.NO.51/HYD/2009 SMT. N. ANDALAMMA, HYDERABAD PROCEEDING AGAINST THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE ONE SEARCHED AND HENCE, NOTICE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT REQUIRING THE ASSESS EE TO FILE ITS RETURN FOR THE RELEVANT BLOCK PERIOD IS VALID. PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BD MANDATES THAT ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO WHO M SEARCH WAS MADE SHOULD BE SATISFIED THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 132 AND IT IS AFTER RECORDING SUCH SATISFACTION WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED ARE REQUIRED TO BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 9. IN THE PRESENT CASE, EVIDENTLY, SATISFACTION HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH WAS MADE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, BASIC CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR INVOKI NG SECTION 158BD OF ACT QUA THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SATISFIED. HENCE, THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 158BD IS VALID. WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS IT(SS)A.51/HYD/2009 OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. ORDER DATED 09 TH MARCH, 2012 IS TREATED AS CANCELLED SINCE WE HAVE DISMISSED THE LEGAL GROUND. 11. IN THE RESULT, IT(SS)A.NO.51/HYD/2009 OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 6 IT(SS)A.NO.51/HYD/2009 SMT. N. ANDALAMMA, HYDERABAD ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.11.2013. SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAV AN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 27 TH NOVEMBER, 2013 VBP/- COPY TO 1. SMT. ANDALAMMA LR TO N. NARASIMHA, 1-3-183/40/17 3, SBI COLONY, GANDHI NAGAR, KAWADIGUDA, HYDERABAD - 50 0 080. 2. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(A), GUNTUR 4. CIT (CENTRAL), 7 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, HYDERABAD 5. DR B BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD.