Sanivarapu Mysura Reddy, Kadapa V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kadapa

MA 68/Hyd/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6216 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-01-2018
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 01-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMAN MALIK
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Agreed addition

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 68/HYD/2017 (IN ITA NO.1025 /HYD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) SANIVARAPU MYSURA REDDY, KADAPA PAN AQZPS 2955B VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1, KADAPA (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. RAMA RAO REVENUE BY : SMT. SUMAN MALIK DATE OF HEARING : 23-01-2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09-02-2018 ORDER PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M.: THIS IS A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN ITA NO. 1025/HYD/2016 DATED 26.05.2017. THE ITAT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY A.O ON AGREED BASIS. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O HAS NOTICED THAT THERE WAS A VARIATION OF THE AMOUNT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT TO THE AMOUNT REFLECTED IN THE ANNUAL STATEMENTS. WHEN ENQUIRED ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE TOTAL OUTSTANDING BANK BALANCE AS ON 31.03.2010 WAS ON RS. 2 M.A NO. 68/HYD/2017 SANIVARAPU MYSURA REDDY, KADAPA 32,52,691/-, BUT THE CASH BOOK INDICATED ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS. 70,840/-. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT DIFFERENCE AROSE AS THE ASSESSEE HAD ISSUED CHEQUES TO FOUR PARTIES, BUT WERE NOT ON ENCASHED AND SUBSEQUENTLY THESE WERE SETTLED BY WAY OF CASH AROSE. A.O ASKED FOR CONFIRMATIONS AND PRODUCTION OF THE PARTIES. ASSESSEE HOWEVER COULD NOT PRODUCE AND AGREED THAT THAT THE SAME MAY BE TREATED AS INCOME, AS AN AGREED ADDITION. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE SUBMITTED CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND ON REMAND A.O REITERATED THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN CONFIRMATION AND ADDITION WAS OF AGREED NATURE. DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ITAT ALSO, EVEN THOUGH ASSESSEE FILED A PAPER BOOK, THE CORRELATION BETWEEN THE CHEQUES ISSUED AND THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNTS OF THOSE PARTIES COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FURTHER EVIDENCE, THE ITAT HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 3. IT WAS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT FACTS ARE AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND IT WAS ACCEPTED THAT CHEQUES WERE NOT ENCASHED, THEREFORE THE A.O AND CIT(A) ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION. LD. COUNSEL PLACED ON RECORD CERTAIN DOCUMENTS STATED TO BE THE ACCOUNT COPIES OF THE LATER YEAR OF THE FOUR PARTIES TO WHOM THE CHEQUES WERE ISSUED INDICATING THE PAYMENTS MADE SUBSEQUENTLY IN CASH. THESE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT THE TIME OF APPEAL HEARING, HENCE THE DOCUMENTS CANNOT BE ADMITTED IN THE COURSE OF PRESENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 254(2) OF THE IT ACT. NOT ONLY THAT IN THE PAPER BOOK, FOUR LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF THE PARTIES WERE PLACED AT PAGES 21 TO 29 3 M.A NO. 68/HYD/2017 SANIVARAPU MYSURA REDDY, KADAPA WHICH INDICATED THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE FOUR PARTIES, HOWEVER THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS NOW PLACED, DO NOT HAVE ANY CORRELATION WITH THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF THE SAME PARTIES FOR THE PERIOD OF 01.01.2010 TO 31.03.11, PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK FROM PAGE NO. 74 TO 86. IN VIEW OF THAT, THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE DOCUMENTS NOW STATED TO BE PAYMENTS MADE IN LIEU OF THE CHEQUES, CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. FOR THESE REASONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION AND ACCORDINGLY WE REJECT CONTENTIONS NOW RAISED IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. 4. ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE PLACED ON RECORD AND ON THE BASE OF THE ARGUMENTS PLACED BEFORE THE BENCH THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED AFFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). PROCEEDINGS U/S 254(2) ARE LIMITED ONLY FOR CORRECTING THE ERRORS OR MISTAKES APPARENT FROM RECORD. THE SAID PROVISION CANNOT BE USED FOR REVIEW OF THE DECISION ALREADY GIVEN. IN VIEW OF THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE, ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09 TH FEBRUARY, 2018. SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 09 FEBRUARY, 2018. 4 M.A NO. 68/HYD/2017 SANIVARAPU MYSURA REDDY, KADAPA KRK COPY TO:- 1.SANIVARAPU MYSURA REDDY, C/O SHRI S. RAMA RAO, ADV, FLAT NO. 102, SHRIYAS ELEGANCE, 3-6-643, STREET NO. 9, HIMAYAT NAGAR, HYDERABAD-500 029 2. ITO, WARD -1, BESIDES MURALI THEATRE, KADAPA -526001. 3) CIT(A), KURNOOL. 4) PR. CIT, KURNOOL. 5)THE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYD. 6) GUARD FILE.