Akurati Ramesh, Tedepalligudem V. Income tax Officer, Ward International Taxation, Kakinada

MA 27/VIZ/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9545 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 13-10-2022
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 24-07-2022
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलȣयअͬधकरण, ͪवशाखापटणमपीठ, ͪवशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM Įीदुåवूǽआरएलरेɬडी, ÛयाǓयकसदèयएवंĮीएसबालाकृçणन, लेखासदèयकेसम¢ BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA No.27/Viz/2022 (In आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.157/Viz/2021) (Ǔनधा[रणवष[/ Assessment Year :2013-14) Sri Akurati Ramesh, Tadepalligudem, Andhra Pradesh-534101. PAN: AWLPM 9543 M Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-International Taxation, Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh-533001. (अपीलाथȸ/ Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/ Respondent) अपीलाथȸकȧओरसे/ Appellant by : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, CA Ĥ×याथȸकȧओरसे/ Respondent by : Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. AR सुनवाईकȧतारȣख/ Date of Hearing : 14/10/2022 घोषणाकȧतारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 28/10/2022 O R D E R PERS. BALAKRISHNAN, Accountant Member : This Miscellaneous Application is filed by the assessee seeking recall of the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 157/Viz/2021 (AY 2013-14), dated 26/05/2022. 2 2. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative [Ld. AR] submitted that the Hon’ble ITAT while passing the order dated 26/05/2022 has observed as follows: “8.........There is no evidence to the fact that the AO has made enquiry in the instant case, but has accepted the version of the assessee without making any enquiry or without mentioning the same in the assessment order.” 3. In this regard, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld.AO has made enquiries with regard to the subject issue and the evidences were filed in the paper book pages 25 to 31. The Ld. AR also relied on the following case laws: (i) Judgment of the Hon’ble AP High Cour t in the case of Spectra Shares & Scrips (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in [2013] 36 tax mann.co m 348 (Andhra Pradesh). (ii) Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Meerut Roller Flour Mills (P.) Ltd vs. CIT reported in [2019] 110 tax mann.co m 170 (Allahabad). (iii) Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishna Capbox (P.) Ltd reported in [2015] 60 tax mann.co m 243 (Allahabad) (iv) ITAT, Chennai Bench decision in the case of M/s. Winvest Holdings (I) Pv t Ltd., vs. ACIT in ITA No. 1519/Chny/2019, dated 23/08/2019. 4. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that the order of the Tribunal dated 26/05/2022 may be recalled. 3 5. The Ld. Departmental Representative supported the order of the Hon’ble ITAT. 6. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. We noted from the paper book filed by the Ld. AR that the Ld. AO has raised queries with regard to capital gains on sale of properties. Further, in the notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 2/8/2017, the Ld. AO has requested (in Sl No.8) to explain the details of amounts transferred to the assessee’s account by Sri VenigallaSrinivasas towards consideration of the property. In response, the assessee vide its e-mail dated 16/8/2017 in Para No.5 has replied as follows: “5) Please see attached document explain how I received Rs. 73,00,000 as well as Rs. 44,496,000 as par t of the se ttlement.” 7. Further, the assessee in email dated 27/12/2016 to the Ld. AO has stated that the cash deposits are part of the proceeds of sale of the property and has attached the sale deed with respect to the fund transfer. However, the assessee contradicted his own statement as explained in the sources of deposits as mentioned in para 2 of the CIT order as follows: Sl no Date of cash Amount deposited Sources explained 1. 18.6.2012 19,95,000 Deposited by Sri Venigalla Srinivas from out of the amounts 4 (aggregating to Rs. 1,07,46,490) sent to him during the year 2007. 2. 9/7/2012 15,00,000 Deposited by assessee’s father Sri A. Anjaneyulu, being part of the consideration received on sale of property situated at Vijayawada belonging to the assessee, in the form of three DDs issued on his name by the purchaser. 3. 26.7.2012 17,70,000 Deposited by Sri Venigalla Srinivas from out of the amounts (aggregating to Rs. 1,07,46,490) sent to him during the year 2007. Total 52,65,000 Sl no Date of cash Amount deposited Sources explained 1. 9.7.2012 15,00,000 Part of sale consideration received by way of cheque no. 000057. 2. 27.7.2012 33,00,000 Part of sale consideration received by way of cheque no.073787 3. 7.1.2013 9,81,000 Part of sale consideration received by way of cheque No. 000057 4. 8.1.2013 5,50,000 Deposited by Sri VenigallaSrinivaas from out of the amounts (aggregating to Rs. 1,07,46,490) sent to him during the year. 5. 10.01.2013 2,00,000 Deposited by Sri Venigalla Srinivas from out of the amounts (aggregating to Rs. 1,07,46,490) sent to him during the year 2007. 6. 25.3.2013 40,00,000 Transferred from assessee’s NRO account with HSBC Total 1,05,31,000 5 8. The Ld. CIT in para 3.3 of his order observed that no confirmation letter from Sri Venigalla Srinivas have obtained by the assessee stating that it was deposited by Sri Venigalla Venkata Srinivasa Rao out of the amounts received from the assessee during the year 2007. Further, it is noted that the assessee has also failed to produce the bank account statement of Sri Venigalla Srinivasa Rao before the Ld. Revenue Authorities or even before us. The findings of the Ld. CIT is extracted herein below for reference: “3.3. With regard to amounts claimed to have been deposited by Sri Venigalla Srinivas f rom out of amounts sent to him by you during the year 2007, only copies of e-mail correspondences with Sri Srinivas was submitted (to support your claim.). The f ollowing amounts were stated to have been deposited in cash by Shri Venigalla Venkata Srinivasa Rao, towards repay ment of the amounts that had been advanced by you to Sri Srinivasa Rao during the year 2007. 1. 18.6.2012 Rs. 19,95,000 2. 26.7.2012 Rs. 14,70,000 3. 28.7.2012 Rs. 3,00,000 4. 08.1.2013 Rs. 5,50,000 5. 10.1.2013 Rs. 2,00,000 Total Rs. 45,15,000 On verif ication of the emails, it is noticed that in one of these Sri Venigalla Srinivas conf irmed that he had received Rs. 1,07,46,490/- f rom you for the purpose of making investments. The print out appears as under: “ 12/09/07 Ramesh: 195500 was credited on 06 dec. 1,05,50,590 6 1,95,500 ------------------ 1,07,46,490 ------------------ Plse inf orm your f ather don’t make any other programmes on 14 dec. Srinivas. “ Except the above, the mail does not contain any details with regard to conf irmation of the amounts received by him from you as on the date of the email and it does not explain the transactions held between you and Srinivas, that whether the amounts were given by you, mode of payment/receipt, in whose account the amount was credited, etc., and you have not f urnished any conf irmation letter stating that the credits appearing in your account were the amounts deposited by Sri Srinivas Rao f rom out of the monies received earlier f rom you. Further, the Bank account statement f or the relevant period relating to Sri Venigalla Venkata Srinivasa Rao was also not furnished to prove the sources f or making cash deposits in your Bank A/c.” 9. The case laws referred by the Ld. AR are distinguishable on the fact that the Ld. AO has made specific enquiry during the assessment proceedings with respect to the issues raised U/s. 142(1) in the respective cases. In the instant case, there is no reference by the Ld. AO with respect to the enquiries made in regard to the amounts received from Sri Venigalla Srinivasa Rao which was considered as repayment of the earlier amount sent by the assessee to him during the year 2007. The case laws referred by the Ld. AR failed to support the claim made by the assessee. 7 10. Considering the above facts, in para 8 of the ITAT order in ITA No.157/Viz/2021 (AY 2013-14), dated 26/05/2022 it has been clearly held that the “the AO has not made any enquiry with respect to the cash deposits into the assessee’s account for the amounts claimed to have been received by the assessee’s friend Sri Venigalla Srinivasa Rao. In the absence of proper documentary evidence either before us or before the Ld. Revenue Authorities, we find no merit in the argument of the Ld. AR and dismiss the grounds raised in the Miscellaneous Application. 11. With respect to Ground no.2 wherein it is mentioned that para 8 at page no.7 of the ITAT order dated 26/5/2022 was left incomplete. In this regard, we find that there was an inadvertent typographical error crept in while passing the order and therefore we hereby delete the five wordsie., “Since the AO erred in” in the original Tribunal order dated 26/5/2022. It is ordered accordingly. 12. In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. 8 Pronounced in the open Court on the 28 th October, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (दुåवूǽआर.एलरेɬडी) (एसबालाकृçणन) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) (S.BALAKRISHNAN) ÛयाǓयकसदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखासदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 28.10.2022 OKK - SPS आदेशकȧĤǓतͧलͪपअĒेͪषत/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. Ǔनधा[ǐरती/ The Assessee–Sri Akurati Ramesh, D.No. 3-19-11, Bhupal Nagar, Tadepalligudem, Andhra Pradesh – 534101. 2. राजèव/The Revenue –Income Tax Officer, Ward-International Taxation, 3 rd Floor, Deepthi Towers Main Road, Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh-533001. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 4. आयकरआयुÈत (अपील)/ The Commissioner of Income Tax (IT & TP), Hyderabad. 5. ͪवभागीयĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकरअपीलȣयअͬधकरण, ͪवशाखापटणम/ DR,ITAT, Visakhapatnam 6. गाड[फ़ाईल / Guard file आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam