M. Geetha Rani, Hyderabad V. ITO,Ward 12(3), Hyderabad

MA 117/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2502 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: I RAMA RAO
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO. 117/HYD/2014 ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO. 711/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 SMT. M. GEETHA RANI HYDERABAD PAN: AIPPM44671 VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-12(3) HYDERABAD APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SRI I. RAMA RA O RESPONDENT BY: SRI RAJAT MITRA DATE OF HEARING: 1 7 . 1 0.201 4 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.10.2014 O R D E R PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JM: BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (MA), THE ASSESS EE SEEKS RECTIFICATION/RECALL OF TRIBUNAL ORDER IN ITA NO. 711/HYD/ 2013 DATED 16.01.2014 FOR A.Y. 2008-09. 2 FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A N APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A )-II, HYDERABAD. THE ISSUE IN APPEAL WAS PERTAINING TO AD DITION OF RS. 60 LAKHS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUN T OF CASH DEPOSITS IN SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT NO. 01/00019264 OF ANDHRA BANK, NAMPALLY, HYDERABAD. THE EXPLANATION FURNISH ED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WAS THAT THE SUBJECT BANK ACCOUNT WAS OWNED UP BY ONE SMT. BADDAM KALAVATHY. THE CONFIRMATION LETTER BY THE SAID SMT. KALAVATHY STAT ING THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSES SEE, AND OF MA NO. 117/HYD/2014 SMT. M. GEETHA RANI ================= 2 HER ASSESSMENT PARTICULARS WAS FURNISHED. THE ASSES SEE CONTENDED THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THIS EXPLANATION AND CONFIRMATION BY SMT. BADDAM KALAVATHY, NO ADDITION SHOULD BE MAD E ON ACCOUNT OF THIS ITEM IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. HOWE VER, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. ON APPE AL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 15 .01.2014, DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL, REMANDING THE CASE TO THE F ILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3 THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE FINDING WAS GIVEN BY THIS TRIBUNAL BY OVERLOO KING, IGNORING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE ORA L SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF HE ARING THAT APPLYING THE RATIO OF THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. DURGA PRASAD MORE (82 ITR 540 ) AND IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SMT. P.K. NOORJAHAN (237 ITR 570) TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, NO ADDITION IS WARRANTED IN THE H ANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE VIDE GROUND NO. 4 HAD SPECI FICALLY RAISED THIS ISSUE AND THIS GROUND WAS NOT ADJUDICAT ED AT ALL BY THIS TRIBUNAL. 4 IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL HAD ALSO NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING TO THE MAIN PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SHE HAD DISCHARGED THE ONUS THAT WAS EXPECTED OF HER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1. THIS ISSUE WAS RAISED VIDE GROUND NO. 2, WHICH REMAINS UN-ADJU DICATED. 5 THE AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE MISTAKES AS POINT ED OUT ABOVE ARE CAPABLE OF BEING RECTIFIED IN THE LIG HT OF THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF RAHULKUMAR BAJAJ V. I NCOME-TAX OFFICER [1999] 69 ITD (NAG.) 58) WHEREIN THE SPECIA L BENCH HAD RULED THAT NON-CONSIDERATION OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WOULD CONSTITUTE A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD CAPAB LE OF BEING MA NO. 117/HYD/2014 SMT. M. GEETHA RANI ================= 3 RECTIFIED UNDER THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED U/S. 254 (2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 6 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND ARE OF THE OPINION T HAT A MISTAKE HAS CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BY N OT DISPOSING OFF THE ABOVE GROUNDS. SINCE THE GROUNDS ARE INTER LINKED TO THE OTHER GROUNDS, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 711/HYD/2013 DATED 16.1.2014 IS HEREBY RECALLED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS RESTORED ON THE FILE OF T HE TRIBUNAL. WE DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO POST THE APPEAL FOR HEARING IN REGULAR COURSE UNDER INTIMATION TO BOTH THE PARTIES. 7 IN THE RESULT, MA BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH OCTOBER, 2014. D/ - (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED THE 30 TH OCTOBER, 2014 TPRAO COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . SMT. M. GEETHA RANI, C/O. M/S. I.R. RAO & COMPANY, CAS, C-69, MADHURANAGAR, HYDERABAD-500 038. 2 . THE ITO, WARD - 12(3) , HYDERABAD. 3. THE CIT(A) - II , HYDERABAD. 4 . THE CIT - I , HYDERABAD. 5 . THE DR B BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD