GADDAM VENKATA NARAYANA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1094/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 January 2021AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing substantive justice over technicalities. The issue of Section 68 additions was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with the assessees undertaking to prove the source of credits.

What were the facts?

The assessees faced delays in filing appeals due to communication gaps. The primary issue involved additions made under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits, which the assessees could not adequately explain before the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing appeals should be condoned, and the correctness of additions made under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” : HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

O R D E R PER BENCH :

These assessees’ appeals for AYs.2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 arise from the CIT(A)-12, Hyderabad’s order all dated 25-09-2018 passed in proceedings u/s.144 r.w.s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

2.

In view of the assessees’ pleadings explaining identical delay of 159 days to communication gap between auditor and arguing counsel, compilation of necessary records at personal

:- 2 -: 1094, 1096, 1097 1098, 1099 & 1100/Hyd/2019 level of learned CIT-DR strong opposed thereto, we hold that the same were very well beyond assessee’s control. We find no merit in Revenue’s stand since neither there is any rebuttal of the fact narrated in the condonation petition(s). Hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst.Katiji & Ors [167 ITR 471] (SC) holds that all technical aspects must make way for the cause substantive justice. We thus condone this identical delay of 159 days and proceed to deal upon the merits of the issue(s).

3.

Learned authorised representative next invited our attention to the assessees’ identical pleadings challenging 153A proceedings as well as correctness of Section 68 unexplained cash credits’ addition made in the course of the assessment(s) under challenge as upheld in the CIT(A)’s order(s). His only submission during the course of hearing at this stage is that these assessees could not appear before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment nor could they effectively explain the source of the impugned unexplained cash credits in the additional evidence filed before the CIT(A) which has been sent in remand process for Assessing Officer’s comments. Learned counsel further undertakes to it to do the needful within two effective opportunities of hearing. He has also asserted the fact that neither of the lower authority has taken closing cash balance addition of the first assessment year as forming source of the latter cash deposits in succeeding assessment years thereby granting telescoping benefit. We thus decline the Revenue’s arguments supporting the lower authorities’ action for these

:- 3 -: 1094, 1096, 1097 1098, 1099 & 1100/Hyd/2019 reasons and restore the instant issue of correctness of Section 68 addition in all these cases back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication. Learned authorised representative has undertaken to prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the source of the corresponding sums within two effective opportunities of hearing. We therefore direct the assessees to appear before the Assessing Officer on or before 30th June, 2021 and prove the foregoing ingredients at their own risk and responsibility. No other argument has been raised before us.

4.

These assessees’ appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27th January, 2021

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →