VENKATA SUDHAKAR SIMHADRI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” , HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER
आदेश/ORDER
PER SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.
This appeal is filed by Shri Venkata Sudhakar Simhadri (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 19.12.2023 for the AY 2013-14.
2 ITA No.382/Hyd/2024
At the outset, it is seen that, there is a delay of 56 days in filing of this appeal for which the assessee has filed a condonation petition along with affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents of the condonation petition and after hearing the learned DR, the delay of 56 days in filing of this appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.
The grounds raised by the assessee reads as under :
“1. That the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, upholding the assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2013-14 by the learned Assessing Officer (A.O.) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case to the extent prejudicial to the interest of the appellant and at any rate is opposed to the principles of natural justice and fair play. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the reopening for the A.Y. 2013-14 by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31.03.2021 is bad in law as it is issued beyond the stipulated period of 6 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. 3. As such, the assessment made u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2013-14 based on an invalid notice u/s. 148 is also bad in law and shall be considered as null and void ab initio. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned A.O. did not have any tangible material on record to prove that there was income escaping assessment for the A.Y. 2013-14 except for AIR information. Further, the learned A.O. did not make any independent enquiry before issuing notice u/s. 148 for the A.Y. 2013-14 and hence, the assessment made u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B is bad in law. The act of the learned CIT (Appeals) in confirming the assessment order is bad in law and the additions made/confirmed need to be deleted. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) ignored the ground raised by the appellant in Form 35, that for the A.Y. 2013-14 the appellant was an NRI, having been residing in the USA for more than 20 years and also had a USA citizenship. Further, the appellant had disclosed the interest received on FD amounting to Rs. 25,82,273/- to the USA authorities and filed Form 1040. The same interest amount of Rs. 25,82,273/- was declared as income for the A.Y. 2013-14 in the return of income filed in India on 13.01.2022. 6. On the
3 ITA No.382/Hyd/2024
facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) erred by confirming the assessment made by the learned A.O. by erroneously invoking the provisions of section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the Appellant who is a Non Resident during the A.Y. 2013-14 as per the applicable provisions of the Act with regard to residential status. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi erred both in law and on facts in confirming the addition made by the learned A.O. of Rs. 1,18,45,078/- as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2013-14 w.r.t. the time deposit by summarily rejecting the online submission made by the Appellant on 15.03.2022 explaining the source for investment of the same. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi erred by confirming the act of the learned A.O. in not accepting the return of income filed on 13.01.2022 vide acknowledgement no. for the A.Y. 2013-14 in response to notice u/s. 148 admitting a total income of Rs. 25,82,270/- being interest on the above time deposit. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi erred both in law and on facts in confirming the demand of Rs. 1,33,62,699/- inclusive of interest u/s. 234A of Rs. 44,54,216/- and interest u/s. 234B of Rs. 46,25,532/- for the A.Y. 2013-14 raised by the learned A.O. as against the principles of natural justice. 10. For these and other reasons which may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is therefore prayed that the additions made by the learned A.O. which were confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeals) in the ex-parte orders passed for the A.Y. 2013-14 may kindly be deleted. 11. The appellant craves leave to add/alter any of the ground of appeal on or before the date of hearing 11. The appellant craves leave to add/alter any of the ground of appeal on or before the date of hearing..”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) were initiated in the case of the assessee for the A.Y. 2013-14 on the basis of information that the assessee had interest income of Rs. 25,82,272/- as per TDS Return U/s. 194A of the Act and also had
4 ITA No.382/Hyd/2024
time deposit of Rs. 1,18,45,078/- with a bank. However the assessee had not filed the Return of Income for the AY 2013-14. Hence a notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 31.03.2021 by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld.AO”), required the assessee to file the return of income. However, the assessee neither filed the return of income nor furnished any information / reply in response to the notices issued. Consequently, the assessment was completed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (“Ld.AO”) u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act making an addition of Rs.1,44,27,350/- on 15.03.2022.
Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. AO, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A) also the assessee did not responded to the notices issued to him. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) confirming the order of Ld. AO, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Feeling aggrieved with the order of learned CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us, contending that the authorities erred in declining sufficient opportunity to the assessee in explaining the interest received and the sources of time deposit with bank. It is further contended that the learned CIT(A) has passed the order without providing proper opportunity. The learned AR further submitted that the assessee does not stand to gain by allowing the appeal to be disposed of without any documentary evidence being produced and it is only due to the reasons beyond the control of
5 ITA No.382/Hyd/2024
the assessee, the assessee could not produce the documents. By consolidating all the grounds, he further submitted that given an opportunity, the assessee is now ready to produce all such details and conduct the proceedings diligently and get the matter disposed of on merits.
Per contra, learned DR placed heavy reliance on the orders of the authorities below, and submitted that sufficient opportunity has already been given by the authorities, but the assessee failed to avail the same. He opposed the grant of further opportunity to the assessee.
We have heard the rival submissions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. It could be seen from the orders of the authorities that the assessee failed to produce the details with regards to the interest received and the sources of time deposit with bank, which resulted in passing the orders without consideration thereof. It is a fact that the assessee does not stand to gain by not producing such documents. Be that as it may, now that the assessee is ready to produce all such documentary evidence in support of his contentions and get the matter disposed of on merits. The highest that would happen by allowing an opportunity to the assessee is that a cause would be decided on merits. With this view of the matter, we are of the view that fresh opportunity should be given to the assessee and, accordingly, we set aside the impugned order
6 ITA No.382/Hyd/2024
and restore the issue to the file of the Ld. AO for passing a fresh order on merits after affording the opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Grounds of appeal are answered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 19th June, 2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 19th June, 2024. *Reddy gp/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Shri Venkata Sudhakar Simhadri, Villa No.14, Namaha Lakwood, ;Himayath Sagar Road, Hyderabad-500 030 2 The DCIT, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. 3 Prl.CIT, Hyderabad. 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File
By Order Asst. Registrar.
ITAT, Hyderabad.
7 ITA No.382/Hyd/2024
