ITO, Ward-8(2), Hyderabad V. Shri K Narottam Reddy, Hyderabad

MA 51/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0239 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M H NAIK
• Assessee Lawyers: B SHANTI KUMAR
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO. 51/HYD/2013 IN I.T.A. NO. 1126/HYD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-8(2) HYDERABAD V. SRI K. NAROTHAM REDDY PEDDAMANGALARAM VILLAGE, R.R. DISTRICT, A.P. PAN: AHOP5605L APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SRI M.H. NAIK RESPONDENT BY: SRI B. SHANTI KUMAR DATE OF HEARING: 19 . 04 .201 3 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 19 . 04 .201 3 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BY THE REVENUE IS S EEKING RECALL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 1126/HYD/20 12. 2. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVE N A FINDING IN ITS ORDER THAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE E STIMATED AT 5% OF SALES. HOWEVER, THERE ARE OTHER GROUNDS RELATING TO ADDITI ON U/S. 68 OF THE ACT WHICH ARE NOT DULY ADJUDICATED BY THE TRIBUNAL. AC CORDING TO THE DR, NON ADJUDICATION OF OTHER GROUNDS AMOUNTS TO MISTAK E APPARENT ON RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH IS REQUIR ED TO BE RECALLED FOR ADJUDICATION. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT ON CE THE INCOME IS ESTIMATED, THERE CANNOT BE ANY FURTHER AD DITION ON ACCOUNT OF ANY DISCREPANCY AS HELD BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INDWELL CONSTRUCTIONS VS. CIT (232 ITR 776). AS SU CH THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL. MA. NO. 51/HYD/2013 SRI K. NARATHOM REDDY ==================== 2 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS E STIMATED AT 5% OF THE SALES AND THE TRIBUNAL CONFINED TO THIS FINDING AND THEREAFTER NOT GONE INTO ANY OTHER GROUND RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IT MEANS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN A CONSCIOUS DECISION TO THIS EFF ECT. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE TR IBUNAL ORDER IS ALSO BASED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONA L HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INDWELL CONSTRUCTIONS VS. CIT (232 ITR 776 ). 5. IN THE RESULT, MA FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH APRIL, 2013. SD/ - ( ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 19 TH APRIL, 2013 TPRAO COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8(2), 8 TH FLOOR, D - BLOCK, IT TOWERS, HYDERABAD. 2. SRI K . NAROTHAM REDDY, PROP. RAGHAVENDRA WINES, 4 - 30, PEDDAMANGALARAM VILLAGE, MOINABAD MANDAL, R.R. DIST RICT. 3. THE CIT(A) - III, HYDERABAD. 4. THE CIT - II, HYDERABAD. 5. THE DR A BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD