Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD
Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bold Beauty Vinimay Vs. DCIT, Private Limited, Central Circle-5, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN: AADCB 5978 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri M.V. Anil Kumar Revenue by: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 28/01/2020 Date of pronouncement: 11/06/2020 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-XI, Hyderabad in appeal No.0504 to 0506/CC-6/CIT(A)-XI/13- 14, dated 09/02/2015 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A & U/s. 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y.2010-11.
The assessee has raised the following grounds in its appeal:
“1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case that there is no incriminating material to issue notice U/s. 153A and consequently the assessment U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153A is bad in law. 2. Your appellant submits that in absence of incriminating material the addition of Rs. 1 Crs is not warranted.
3. Your appellant submits that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the details of the prospe3ctive share holder have been furnished, the decision of the supreme court in the case of Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd 319 ITR 5 squarely applies to the facts of this case.
4. Your appellant as an alternative submitted that the amount of Rs. 1 Cr may be telescoped with the undisclosed income of Rs. 14 Cr admitted in the hands of the firm by name Raghava constructions in which the Directors are partners, the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the is and confirmed the addition. 5. Your appellant submits that in absence of books of account, the addition U/s. 68 is bad in law.”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private limited Company engaged in the business of making investment and earning profit out of the same. Search U/s. 132 of the Act was conducted on 20/12/2011 in the business premises of the assessee company and thereafter notice U/s. 153A dated 09/7/2012 was issued calling for its return of income. In response, the assessee company filed return of income for the relevant AY 2010-11. Thereafter assessment was completed U/s. 1assessee 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act on 30/09/2013 wherein the Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 1 Cr invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act towards unexplained loan obtained from a corporate body during the relevant assessment year.
The Ld. AO had made such addition because the assessee company did not provide convincing particulars about the corporate body from whom the assessee had received the loan of Rs. 1 Cr. On appeal the Ld. CIT (A) upheld the order of the Ld. AO because even before him the assessee was unable to explain the genuineness of the transaction.
At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. AR furnished the annual report of M/s. Avance Technologies Limited the company from whom the assessee had received the loan, letter from Axis Bank, Khammam Branch and the copy of the acknowledgement letter from P. Prasad Reddy, one of the Director of the assessee company. The Ld. AR argued before us stating that since the audited annual report of M/s. Avance Technologies Limited is produced before the Tribunal for the first time the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. AO in order to verify the additional evidence and thereafter decide the issue in a accordance with law and merits. The Ld. DR though vehemently objected to the submission of the Ld. AR conceded for his request.
We have heard the rival submission and carefully perused the materials on record. Since the assessee company has furnished the audited annual report of M/s. Avance Technologies Limited before us from whom the assessee company had borrowed the amount of Rs. 1 Cr against which the Ld. AO had made addition invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act, we are of the considered view that the entire additional evidence furnished by the assessee for the first time is required to be examined by the Ld. AO for rendering proper justice. Hence, we hereby remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO with direction to examine the additional evidence filed by the assessee and also any other fresh evidence filed before him and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law and merit. At the same breath, we also hereby direct the assessee company to co-operate with the ld. Revenue Authorities in their proceedings failing which they shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merit based on the materials on record.
Before parting, it is worthwhile to mention that this order is pronounced after 90 days of hearing the appeal which is though against the usual norms, we find it appropriate, taking into consideration of the extra-ordinary situation in the light of the lock-down due to Covid-19 pandemic. While doing so, we have relied in the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. JSW Ltd. In and 6103/M/2018 for AY 2013-14 order dated 14th May 2020.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open Court on 11th June, 2020.