DR CHILUKOTI VEERAMMA,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, NELLORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 354/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 January 2022AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal restored the grounds to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification, considering the additional documents and the assessee's claim regarding interest income not being received in the relevant year.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns additions made for unaccounted purchases/unexplained investments and interest thereon. The assessee presented additional documents before the tribunal, showing the plant/machinery belonged to third parties.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions for unexplained investments and interest were justified, especially in light of new evidence presented before the tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao
For Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Hearing: 04.01.2022Pronounced: 06.01.2022

Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dr. Chilukoti Veeramma, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Nellore. Ward – 4, PAN : AFDPC0881R. Nellore. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri S. Ramarao Revenue by: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date of hearing: 04.01.2022 Date of pronouncement: 06.01.2022 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Tirupati’s order dated 03.01.2019 in involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both parties. Case file perused.

2.

We notice at the outset that the assessee’s twin substantive grounds seeking to reverse both the lower authorities’ action making unaccounted purchases / unexplained investments addition of Rs.9,80,000/- and interest thereon of Rs.1,88,000/-; respectively, do not require us to delve much deeper in the relevant factual matrix for the reasons given hereunder :

3.

We next notice with the able assistance of both the parties that the assessee has filed additional documents before us containing the corresponding details of the plant / machinery in the nature of Fuji Computer Radiography with Lenovo Monitor that the same in fact belongs to Shri N. Mastanaiah and his wife, who have also filed the relevant details which were nowhere placed in the lower proceedings.

4.

The assessee’s case regarding the latter issue is that the interest income in issue has nowhere been received in the relevant previous year. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s twin substantive grounds back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh necessary factual verification as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 6th January, 2022.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →