NARASIMHA REDDY KODURU, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1311/HYD/2016Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 March 2018AY 2010-113 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, citing the assessee's failure to appear and effectively pursue the appeal. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A)'s findings were uncontroverted due to the lack of representation.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution as neither the assessee nor their representative appeared for the hearing. The assessee had initially admitted additional income during a survey but later retracted it, claiming it was made under pressure.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's absence. Whether the assessee's retraction of an admitted income is valid without supporting evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133A,Section 148,Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)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 BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD

Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

For Respondent: Shri K. Srinivas Reddy

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD

BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 1311/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Narasimha Reddy Koduru, vs. Income-tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 2(1), Hyderabad.

PAN – ADFPK 0909A

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri K. Srinivas Reddy

Date of hearing : 05-03-2018 Date of pronouncement : 16-03-2018

O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 05/01/ 2016 of CIT(A) - 10, Hyderabad, for AY 2010-11.

2.

On perusal of record, we find that this case was adjourned on number of occasions from 12/01/2017 to 12/01/2018 due to some or the other reasons as mentioned in the order sheet. When the appeal is posted for hearing today i.e. on 05/03/2018, which was informed to both the parties in the open court, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor there is a request for adjournment of the case. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhttachargee & Anr., 118 ITR 461 that appeal does not mean only filing of memo of appeal but also pursuing it effectively. In cases where the assessee does not want to pursue the appeal, Court/Tribunal have inherent power to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as held by Hon’ble High court of Mumbai in the case of M/s Chemipol Vs. Union of India in Excise

2 ITA No. 1311 /Hyd/2016 Narasimha Reddy Koduru

appeal No. 62 of 2009. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Multiplan (India) Ltd., (38 ITD 320) and Madhya Pradesh High Court in Late Tukojirao Holkar (223 ITR 480), we dismiss this appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution.

3.

Even on merits, it is observed that the assessee, Director of M/s KNR Contractors Pvt. Ltd., filed his return of income on 15/10/2010 for the AY 2010-11 declaring total income of Rs. 1,61,47,110/-. A survey u/s 133A was conducted in the premises of the company M/s KNR Contractors Pvt. Ltd. on 02/11/2010. During the survey proceedings, the assessee admitted additional income of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- in his individual capacity. Since the assessee had admitted Rs. 1.4 crore as additional income for AY 2010-11, which had escaped assessment, AO issued notice u/s 148 on 15/07/2013 and subsequently, notice u/s 143(2) dated 30/12/2013 was issued and served on the assessee. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed the information as called for.

3.1 During the scrutiny proceedings, assessee retracted from his admission of additional income vide his disposition dated 20/03/2014 stated that he was under pressure and was not physically and mentally sound while admitting additional income. He stated that the real profits from contracts vary from 5.5% to 7.39% as reflected in the return of income. According to AO, assessee failed to produce any material evidences, books of account, invoice/vouchers etc. for verification of the claims of expenditure. The AO therefore opined that the assessee had shown business profits @ 3.64% of gross receipts which is very low compared to the assessee’s own admission of profits from 5.5% to 7.39%. Accordingly, the additional income admitted by the assessee during the survey proceedings, was taken by the AO for arriving at reasonable figures of profit. Thus, the AO determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 3,01,47,110/- (Rs. 1,61,47,110 + 1,40,00,000). On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO.

3 ITA No. 1311 /Hyd/2016 Narasimha Reddy Koduru

4.

Since, there is no Representation from the assessee and the findings of the CIT(A)) are uncontroverted, we uphold the order of CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on 16th March, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Hyderabad, Dated: 16th March, 2018. kv

Copy to:- 1) Narasimha Reddy Koduru, C/o Shri AV Raghuram, Advocate, 610 Babukhan Estate, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad – 500 001. 2) ITO, Ward – 2(1), IT Towers, AC Guards, Hyd. 3) CIT(A) – 10, Hyd. 4) CIT (IT & TP) Hyd. 5) The Departmental Representative, I.T.A.T., Hyderabad. 6) Guard File

More judgments on Section 133A

All 5,893 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →