Mr. Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao V. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

ITTA/20/2020

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, which pertained to the assessment year 2011-2012. The appellant challenged the order under Section 260-4 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a search and seizure operation conducted on 09-10-2010. The primary contention was regarding the delay in filing the appeal and the scope of the appeal concerning the consequential and revisional orders issued by the tax authorities. The High Court of Telangana found that the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional and allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's earlier order and restoring the matter for re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 760892 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Balakrishnan Vs. Justice
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B SARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: A V A SIVA KARTIKEYA
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2011-2012; Income Tax; Revisional Authority; Search and seizure; Condelation of Delay
• Section: 16(1); 11(j); 260-4

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD INCOME TAX TRIBU NAL APPEAL NO: 20 OF 2020 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal under Section 260-4 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 , against the order dated 2511012019 in ITA No.9B/Hydl2016 on the file of lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, for the AssessmentYear 2011-2012 Between: Thunuguntla Jagan [.4ohan Rao, ...APPELLANT AND The Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Central Circle - 2(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Opposite LB Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 004. ...RESPONDENT For the Appellant : SRI A.V.A.SIVA KARTIKEYA, Advocate For the Respondent : SRI B.NARASIMHA SARMA, SENIOR SC FOR CENTRAL TAXES The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT rro ot tt. tlLt. sRr.JL S1-l('[ r.s.r{ }t cH DR, R. o . l) tIo ot. R, ut.E sRt ,tt,s't'tcI: 't'.. tARN. 'I'H (;ouD 1.1'.1'.A. o.20 of 2020 .t t ' tX i l [_ 't-: tl)cr IIon'blc Sri .lLrslice ,1.S. Iirnrrchrrnclnr Rlo) Ihis appcal is lllecl Lrndcr Scction l(r0.. ol'the Incorle l-ar ., ct. 196 I ( Ibr short 'thc .. ct') challcnlrinq thc olclcr dt li- 10-1019 in l.l. . o.9E llrcl l0l(r pusscd lrr tlrc Inconre Iax .. 1-rptllrt.''l ribLrnll. l lr ticrrrblrl Ilrlrnch'., '. I lr tlcrablcl l iirr short the'l-r'ibLrnal' ) :. I hc lppcllant is en inciir iilLnl usscsscc Lrnrlcl thc . e t -1. A scarch and scizLre rl'as conductccl in thc casc oltlre allpellant on l(r-09-l0l 0. and a noticL' r.urdcr Section l'11(l ) ol' thc' Act u as issued to the appellant tbr the Assessrnent Year 201 l- 12. as the date ol'search lell u'ithin the said Assessment Year. .+. 'l hc asscssec- lllcd its rcturn ot' Income on 0 i-0i-2010, clcclaring the total incorre ol' Its.67.86.3,10i -. 5. I)Lrring the coutsc .l' scrtltirt) llrocceclirrgs. thc r scsscc ltsscsscc s xulh()r'i,/r'(i r'oItc crttitti c :t1t1-rs31'g( ll'otll titlle ttr tinrc and a clctailcd rcpll rirs also lllctl orr 05-0 1-l0ll. 6. Ih,,' Dr'puty ( otttttrissiottct ol' lttcorltc 'l ar. (lcntral (-ircle-1. I Ilclcnrbad. thc thcn i sscssing Olliccr. r icl.' his orclcr clt.i0-03-l0l .1. conrpleLecl thc assessrttcnt. -l hc irtcotttc tetttrttcd *'as tlle ilrcollrc lusscssr-d. o scparatc aclclitions rr crc tttadc. ) l R tN I .1 ll, -11) lll.11r L l-rtcr'. thc [)r'incipal ( ortttttis:tiorrct' ol' lttirottrc I trr (('crrlrll). f ly dcrabacl issr-rcd a slrotr causc Irolicc pr{)ltosirtg to rcvisc thc asscssurcnt in tcnrs ol'Scction l(ri ol'thc. ct 8. The Revisional Authority, vide his show cause notice, proposed to rlake an addition o1' Its.l .0.1.66.13.1,'-. being thc total r.aluc ol'gold ancl silver .jcuellcry'. lbirnd during thc coursc ol' search ancl seizure proceedings, as unexplairred investrrent in the hands olthe Assessee. -l he Revisional Authority opined that the assessee could not produce arrr clocLrnrcr.rtlrrr cr iclcrrce durin_r: thc tirlc ol'tlrc olir.inal ilsscssnrcr'rt ancl that hc rras not Iiling rr'tLrrns unclcr thc calth Iar .. ct. 195 7. 9. In lcsponsc to thc said noticc. tlrc ilsscssc!'lilcd a cietlilcd rcplr on ll-0 l-l0l-). In its rcplr. the asscsscc sLrlrnrittccl that lctr.rlns unclcr thc icalth 'l ar r cl. It)57 ricre llir.cl in his irrclir idual capacitr. ancl also in thc nanrc ol' I ..lagan Mohan Rao (llt.l:). .1 .Annapr-rrna. '1 . ancla kishore & l.Saritha (i.c. his lll.,lr & l'anrilr rncrlbcrs) tbr thc Assessrnent Year 20 I l- I 2. FurtheL. personal aflldavits o1- his lamil.v rnembers r.rcre also enclosed to thc repl1,. .Apart liom that, detailecl sLatenrents ol'thc pr\"rrchascs nradc bl his lirnrill, nrcnrbers. both rrithin and oLrtsiclc- India. uerc lirlnishccl. 10. It is contcnclcd br the apltcllant Lhat blLrshing asiclc thc subrrissions ol'the asscsscc. thc Ilcvisiorlrl ALrtholitr cornplctcci the ler ision anci passcil arr olclcl under Scction 16,-l ol'tlrc ,, ct on l0-0.1- l0l,i scttinil nsicle thc rrcll consiclclcci olcicl ol'thc , sscssinu Ol'llccr. 'I he Ilcvisional ALrthoritr clirectccl thc ., sscssirr!. Ol'liccr. to r.cclo tltc I 3 4St{..1 & ri ..r irra 20 202{) assessrrent alier \"making detailecl encluiries and investigation\". lle w'as ol'the opinion that the Assessing Olllccr ought 1il have rnade 'lurthcr errrluirics'. b,-'lirrc acceptirrs thc slatcnrcnts madc b1 the ass!-ssL'c at thr' tirre o1'assessnrcnt. 'l he Rer isional Authoritv did not corrsiclcl tlrc sepalatc rcturns rrrrdcl thc 'ealth Iax , ct. 1957 uncl thc rl'lldar its ancl othcr uraterial Illed br the tirmilv nrcnrbers ol' the LISSCSSL'e. i I . I hc Assessins Ol-llccr'. r idc his olcler clt.i l- I l-10I 5. conrple tccl lhc asscssnrcnt oncc agarr.r. r-rnclcr Slcction l-11(j)r',ri, l6j ol'thc' Act, in tLrnc u ith thc order ot.Lhc Rcr isional ., r-rthoritr, lr2. Qucstioning the orclel ol' thc Rer isional ALrtholity orr i I- I l-10 I 5: that hc ri as ur.rcier a bouu lile but crroncoLls r icri that dt.l0-03-2015. an appeal rvas filed belbre the I'ribLrnal by the assessee/appcllant on 29-0 I -20 I 6. ll. I'lrr- assesscc contcnds that hc approachr'cl his c()r-lnsL-l onlr alier thc lccci1lt ol thc conscclucntill or(lcr' Pusscrl hr thc ,' :scssing ( )l'tlccr run uppeal to b.' tllccl challcrrging onlr thr- colrserltlL'ntill ordcr rtrcl not to thc Ilcr isioniil Orclcr: antl thut olrlr llicr It.'irllpr-oachcci his cotttlse l. lculizcd thut an rirpcul ought to ltar e bcctt tilcd chllle ngirlg thc ll i.ls Iicr ision , Lrtholitr 's orclcr dt. I 0-l-l() I 5 al,srr I-l . So thc I'1\"1 , *as lllcd rvith l delav o1' J54 cla1's bclbrc thc I'rib Llnalbn 29-01-20 I 6, along '\"vith a pctition to condor.tc thc dclay in lrling the sarne under sec.5 olthe Lirnitation Act. 1963. .1 l lr. l, r r l,r I .l asscssee lailed to establish that it rias prrcr c'ntccl by a sr.rtficicnt causc lirr not lrling the appcal in tinrr. 16. Challcrrging the siinrc. tht' instrnt appcal is lrlecl. 11. I-earned counsel lor appellant contended tl-rat the Tribunal erred in not condoning the delay ol 15.1 days lll filing the appeal I.1..- . o.9ll Ihd l0l(r br.lirlc thc lriburral: that thc asscsscc as r\"rndcl tlre bono fide irrplcssion that tho appcal is rcquirecl to be llled challenging onlv thc conscquential ordu clt.-i I - l 2-20I 5 and not irgainst thc I{evisional Orclcl clt. l0-0,1-10I 5: und onlr allcr' tlrc assessce a1-rproachcd the counscl. thc appcllant ras aclr isccl that it rias challcn,,,-- the' Ilcr isio,ral , Lrtlroritr oldcr also. and thus 15. Ihc 1'ribr-rnal. b1 thr' inrpLrr:necl orcler clt.l-5-10-1019 irt I.1., . o.98,llycl 30l(r disnrissccl tlrc appeal on thc groLtnd that ncccssaf to 10. 'c lltr c notcd tltc coltcnliot'rs rtl'httth sirics thc delar ol' 15\"1 dar s in lrling thc appcal occurlcd 18. [-earned counsel lbr appellant also contendcd tlrat thc l-ribunal errecl in holding that the explanation ol'lcrcd by' the asscssce lbr thc dclay in f rling the appeal u'as not bono./ide 19. Sri B.Narasirrlra Sarrra, Iearncd Senior Spccial Counsel fbr Central Taxes appearing fbr respondents, however, supported the ordcr passed by' thc -l ribLrnal. and contended that the -fribunal u,as justilie'd in rc'.jccting thc application lirr conclonation o1'de-lar l:R.r& l, ..1 I Lir lr) lL):ir I l. 'l he rr'asorrinq assignecl br the assesscc tbr not prcl'errinu the appcal rvithin thc pcriotl ol'linritation to thc Iribunal rias that he rras urrcler thc nristal