Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” , HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER
O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M. The appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2020-21 arises from the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 12, Hyderabad dated 03.11.2023 invoking proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”).
The grounds raised by the assessee read as under :
“1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is against the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case.
2. The learned Commissioner erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer where an amount of Rs.54,62,000/- is added to the income returned as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act.
3. The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the addition is made by the Assessing Officer, only on the basis of statement recorded by the ADIT u/s 131 of the IT Act.
4. The learned Commissioner ought to have accorded one more opportunity to the assessee for presenting the case.”
The brief facts of the case are that assessee, who is an individual filed his return of income for the A.Y 2020-21 on 08.03.2022. A search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the I.T Act, 1961 was conducted on 04.11.2020 in the case of Sri Vittal Bandari and Bandari Srikanth & Others at his office cum residential premises, by the DDIT Unit - 1(1), Hyderabad. Thereafter, a satisfaction note u/s. 15C dated 19.01.2022 was recorded and a notice u/s. 153C dated 20.01.2022 was issued to the assessee. In response to the same, assessee has filed his return of income for the assessment year 2020-21 on 08.03.2022 admitting his total income at Rs.2,82,490/-. Thereafter, notice u/ s. 143(2) of the I.T Act dated 10.03.2022 was issued to the assessee requiring him to furnish certain information i.e., income computation statements, bank account statements etc. In response, assessee has filed required information and other relevant documents.
3.1. During the course of search proceedings, certain documents were seized vide Annexure-A/BVC/HYD/OI and on verification of which, it was found that absolute agreement of sale of the property admeasuring 186 sq. yds situated at NTR Nagar, Gopanpally village, Serilingampally was entered on 07.09.2019 between Sri P. Rajaiah (Seller) and the assessee for a total sale consideration of Rs.78,12,000/-. In this regard, a sworn statement was recorded from the assessee on 26.11.2020 questioning the sources for the purchase of the said property. In the said statement, the assessee has provided the explanation for the sources to the extent of Rs.23,50,000/- and has admitted the remaining amount of Rs.54,62,000/- as undisclosed income. In the absence of proper source / explanation with respect to the remaining sale consideration of Rs.54,62,000/-, Assessing Officer treated the same as undisclosed investment u/s 69 of the Act and added the same to the income returned. Thus, Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143 r.w.s.153C of the Act and passed order on 27.03.2022.
Feeling aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of assessee on account of non-prosecution and also on merits.
Before us, ld.AR submitted that the assessee has failed to provide necessary information and appear before the lower authorities. Hence, the ld. AR requested the Bench to remand the matter back to the file of ld.CIT(A). Ld.AR further submitted that as the assessee has sufficient cause from putting in appearance before the lower authorities, matter may kindly be remitted back to the authorities below for afresh adjudication.
Per contra, the ld.DR has submitted that the assessee was non-cooperative and had no indulgence at the end of the Tribunal. Further, the ld. DR has supported the orders of the lower authorities.
We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record and also the orders passed by the lower authorities. On perusal of the impugned order passed by ld.CIT(A), we found that ld.CIT(A) upheld the order of Assessing Officer on account of non-prosecution and also on merits. Undoubtedly, in the present case, assessee has failed to explain the source of remaining sale consideration of Rs.54,62,000/- before the Assessing Officer or ld.CIT(A). The assessee has not furnished the documents to prove his case before the lower authorities even after granting several opportunities. The merits of the assessee’s appeal before the ld.CIT(A) have neither been discussed nor decided by the ld.CIT(A). From para 7 of the order of ld.CIT(A), it is clear that ld.CIT(A) find no reason to interfere with the order of Assessing Officer, as there was no representation on behalf of the assessee. In view of the above reasons, in our view, the ends of justice will be met if the matter is remanded back to the file of ld.CIT(A) with a direction to decide the issue after considering the documents available on record and affording the opportunities of hearing to the assessee in accordance with law subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) in favour of Prime Minister National Relief Fund which shall be payable within one month or from the date of receipt of this order or whichever is earlier.
The assessee shall produce the relevant documents to prove the source of investment to the extent of Rs.54,62,000/- and the ld.CIT(A) shall examine all those documents / evidence filed by the assessee and any other documents which may be filed by the assessee as additional evidence. Based on the above said observation, the ld.CIT(A) shall decide the issue in accordance with law and thereafter pass a detailed speaking order dealing with the contentions of the assessee. Needless to say, we have not adjudicated any other ground, all the grounds are required to be adjudicated by the ld.CIT(A) in the remand proceedings. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.