VENKATARAMESH BABU KAZA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-12(1), HYDERABAD

In the quantum appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :

The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) of the assessee submitted that the assessee in the Return of Income (“ROI”) filed for the year under consideration has declared / disclosed foreign asset in the shape of holding of shares of Bank of America Corporation. The Assessing Officer made the addition on the basis of difference in valuation of the same number of shares declared by the assessee for the Asst. Year 2017-18 and for the assessment year under consideration to the tune of Rs.96,70,802/-. The Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee challenged the assessment order by filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) while passing the impugned order. He has pointed out that the assessment order was passed on 10.03.2021 and the appeal was filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) on 30.09.2021 after a delay of about five months due to the reason of medical emergency in the family of the assessee during the Covid period and even the limitation time was extended by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation reported in441 ITR 722. He has pointed out that the Ld. CIT(A) has declined to condone the delay despite the same was filing during in the Covid 19 pandemic period and extended by the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Country in Suo Motu Cognizance for extension of limitation In Re : Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (supra). Apart from dismissing the appeal on limitation, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer despite the fact that the assessee has produced all the record to show that there was no new investment made by the assessee during the year and the valuation as declared by the assessee was based on the market value though there was some typographical mistakes for declaring the valuation for the Asst. Year 2017-18 which has resulted a big difference in the valuation as declared for the year under consideration. The Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee was duly explained that the typographical mistake in the value as declared in the Asst. Year 2017-18. However, ignoring all these facts supported by the evidences the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. He has referred to the details of the holding of shares as well as the submissions filed by the assessee before the authorities below. He has also referred to the Affidavit filed by the assessee explaining all the facts and submitted that the valuation for the Asst. Year 2017-18 of the shares held by the assessee in USA is in fact Rs.79,69,100/- which was mistakenly shown in the ITR as Rs.7,96,910/- because of the last one digit i.e. ‘0’ is omitted from the correct valuation, resulting a huge difference considered by the Assessing Officer in the valuation of the shares for the year under consideration in comparison to the valuation shown in the ROI for the preceding year. Thus he has submitted that once the foreign asset i.e. equity shares of Bank of America Corporation duly recorded in the Merrill Lynch account statement remains the same for the year under consideration as well as in the preceding year then even if there is a mistake in the valuation as shown in the ROI for the preceding year would not justify the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR further pointed that since the assessee was employed in Bank of America in USA and the shares in question were issued under the scheme of stock option to the employees and also part of his annual bonus by the Bank of America which is reported by the assessee correctly in the ROI for the year under consideration as well as in the ROI for the Asst. Year 2017-18. Though there is a difference in the valuation for the year under consideration and in the preceding year which is due to some typographical mistake in the Asst. Year 2017-18 and due to the market value change of the shares as on 31.12.2017. He has referred to the investors account maintained by Merrill Lynch placed at page no.90 as well as page no.96 of the paper book showing the shares as on 31.12.2016 and 29.12.2017 which remains the same without any change and therefore there is no change in the holding of the shares for the year under consideration in comparison to the earlier year, then the addition made by the Assessing Officer is contrary to the record and facts which is not sustainable. Thus he has submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) may be deleted.