SURYASRI POULTRY COMPLEX,KAPAVARAM V. .THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD_1, KAKINADA

ITA 188/VIZ/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Suryasri Poultry Complex, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The appeal arose from an order passed under sections 147 and 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer had reopened the case based on information that the assessee had made significant cash deposits and withdrawals, and had not filed a return of income for the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal noted procedural issues in how the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) handled the appeal, particularly regarding the consideration of additional evidence and the validity of the notice under section 148.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 46625 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SEEKING TIME
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Reassessment proceedings; Unexplained investment; Reason to believe
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1); 143(2); 69; 69A

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (HYBRID HEARING) श्री क े.नरधिम्हा चारी, न्याधयक िदस्य एिं श्री एि बालाक ृष्णन, लेखा िदस्य क े िमक्ष BEFORE SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.188/VIZ/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Suryasri Poultry Complex D.No. 4-148, Rajanagaram Road Biccavolu Mandal, Kapavaram East Godavari – 533343 Andhra Pradesh [PAN: ABGFS6509P] v. ITO – Ward – 1 Income Tax Office Deepthi Towers Main Road, Kakinada – 533001 Andhra Pradesh (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented by : Shri GVN Hari, AR राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented by : Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR) सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 04.12.2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1062357184(1) dated 11.03.2024 for the I.T.A.No.188/VIZ/2024 Suryasri Poultry Complex Page No. 2 A.Y.2017-18 arising out of order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 27.03.2022. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, information through AIR/MNS/ITD system was received that the assessee has deposited cash to the tune of Rs. 79.42 lacs and has purchased time deposit from the Canara Bank to the tune of Rs. 1.50 crores during the Financial Year 2016-17. Further, it was also observed that assessee has withdrawn cash to the extent of Rs. 4.81 crores during the year under consideration. Assessee has not filed return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18. The Ld.Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO\"] therefore considered there is a reason to believe that the income has escaped from taxation and thereafter taking necessary approval from the competent authorities, the case was reopened under section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued and served on the assessee on 26.03.2021. In response, assessee filed the return of income on 26.04.2021 declaring Nil income. Thereafter, statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. Since assessee did not respond to the notices, case was referred to Verification Unit which sent a notice to the assessee through speed post. As there was no response from the assessee the final opportunity by way of show-cause notice (SCN) dated 10.02.2022 was provided to the assessee requesting to explain as to why assessment should not be completed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Assessee failed to respond to SCN. Thereafter the Ld. AO proceeded to I.T.A.No.188/VIZ/2024 Suryasri Poultry Complex Page No. 3 complete the assessment under section 144 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by making the following additions: - Sl.No. Details Amount 1. Unexplained Money under section 69A of the Act : Rs. 5,64,00,000 2. Unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act : Rs. 1,50,00,000 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A), assessee challenged notice issued under section 148 of the Act and also challenged the additions made under section 69 & 69A of the Act. In response to the notice along with the detailed questionnaire during the First Appellate Proceedings, assessee sought time to file the written submissions and relevant documents apart from partly providing the information regarding the changes in the name of the partnership firm on three occasions. Considering the reply filed by the assessee and the written submissions, Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal: - “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in construing the adjournment petition as the written submissions filed by the appellant and deciding the appeal ex-parte. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is invalid and ought to have I.T.A.No.188/VIZ/2024 Suryasri Poultry Complex Page No. 4 quashed the notice and held that the reassessment proceedings are void-ab- initio. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.5,64,00,000 made by the assessing officer u/s 69A of the Act towards alleged unexplained cash deposits and credit entries in the bank account. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have deleted the addition of Rs.1,50,00,000 made by the assessing officer u/s 69A of the Act towards alleged unexplained time deposits in Canara Bank. 6. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 5. Ground Nos. 1 & 6 are general in nature and needs no adjudication. 6. Ground No.2 relates to the exparte decision of the Ld. CIT(A). On this ground, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that assessee has filed part information and sought time for filing the balance details. However, Ld.AR argued that Ld. CIT(A) has considered the written submissions along with seeking time of presenting the case as additional evidences and has dismissed the appeal of the assessee, stating that as per Rule 46A of I.T. Rules, the assessee has not filed any petition for admission of additional evidences. The Ld.AR prayed for remitting the matter to Ld.CIT(A). 7. Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld.DR”] relied on the orders of the Revenue Authorities. 8. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. It was demonstrated by the Ld.AR that replies furnished for the three notices sent by the First Appellate Authority / respondent, by the assessee by seeking time for I.T.A.No.188/VIZ/2024 Suryasri Poultry Complex Page No. 5 submission of evidences with respect to the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Further, we also notice from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) that Ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated matter with respect to the validity of notice issued under section 148 of the Act. In these circumstances, we find force in the argument of the Ld.AR that issue may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication considering the evidences and calling for Remand Report, if necessary. We therefore direct the Ld. CIT(A) to consider the submissions made by the assessee and call for Remand Report, if necessary, from the Ld. AO and decide the issue on merits in accordance of law by providing one more opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee is allowed for Statistical purposes. 9. Since the appeal has been remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), adjudication of the validation of the notice u/s 148 of the Act, raised by the assessee in Ground No. 3 and adjudication of additions on merits raised by the assessee in Ground Nos. 4 & 5 does not arise. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th December, 2024. Sd/- (क े.नरधिम्हा चारी) (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) न्याधयक िदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Sd/- (एि बालाक ृष्णन) (S. BALAKRISHNAN) लेखा िदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 19.12.2024 Giridhar, Sr.PS I.T.A.No.188/VIZ/2024 Suryasri Poultry Complex Page No. 6 आदेश की प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त / Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. निर्धाररती/ The Assessee : Suryasri Poultry Complex D.No. 4-148, Rajanagaram Road Biccavolu Mandal, Kapavaram East Godavari – 533343 Andhra Pradesh 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : ITO – Ward – 1 Income Tax Office Deepthi Towers Main Road, Kakinada – 533001 Andhra Pradesh 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4. नवभधगीय प्रनतनिनर्, आयकर अपीलीय अनर्करण, नवशधखधपटणम /DR,ITAT, Visakhapatnam 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax 6. गधर्ा फ़धईल / Guard file //True Copy// आदेशधिुसधर / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam "