NARMADA VENKITEELA,TIRUPATI vs. ITO., WARD-1(1), TIRUPATI

PDF · subscribers

ITA 43/HYD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 February 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA (Vice President), SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee paid the tax, she failed to submit the required form due to oversight. Considering the assessee's prayer to submit additional documents, the Tribunal quashed the orders of the lower authorities and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared undisclosed income under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016, and paid the tax liability. However, she failed to submit Form No. 3, thus not obtaining Form No. 4 (acknowledgement of tax payment). Consequently, the Assessing Officer added the undisclosed income to her total income.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of undisclosed income is justified when tax was paid but a procedural formality (submission of Form No. 3) was missed, and if the assessee should be given an opportunity to submit supporting documents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Income Declaration Scheme, 2016

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA & SHRI LALIET KUMAR

Hearing: 20/02/2024

BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं/ (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Narmada Venkiteela, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tirupati Ward-1(1), [PAN No. ACPPV3515N] Tirupati अपीलधर्थी/Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी/Respondent निर्धाररती‍द्वधरध/Assessee by: NONE रधजस्‍व‍द्वधरध/Revenue by: Shri N. Raja Kumar, DR सुिवधई‍की‍तधरीख/Date of hearing: 20/02/2024 घोर्णध की‍तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 22/02/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: Aggrieved by the order dated 21/11/2023 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Narmada Venkiteela (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee preferred this appeal.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. For the AY. 2017-18, she filed her return of income on 29-05-2021, declaring total income of Rs. 4,08,000/-, which includes income from house property of Rs. 2,52,000/- and income from other sources of Rs. 1,57,667/-. Assessee filed Form No. 1 under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 (IDS). Assessee declared undisclosed income of Rs. 49,37,974/- pertaining to the AY. 2011-12 in the AY. 2017- 18 relating the FY. 2016-17. The nature of undisclosed income is Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 40,96,099/- and Short Term Capital Gain of Rs. 8,41,875/-, tax determined is Rs. 14,81,392/-, surcharge is Rs. 3,70,348/- and penalty is Rs. 3,70,348/-, totalling to liability of Rs. 22,22,088/-. Thereafter, Form No. 2 was issued to the assessee, determining the tax therein, surcharge and penalty of Rs. 14,81,392/-, Rs. 3,70,348/- and Rs. 3,70,348/-; respectively. In response to Form No. 2, assessee paid the total tax liability on different dates, but did not submit Form No. 3, so she could not obtain the acknowledgement i.e., Form No. 4, though she paid the tax liability. Accordingly, Assessing Officer finalised the assessment by adding the undisclosed income of Rs. 49,37,974/- for non-submission of Form No. 4 by the assessee.

Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). Order of the learned CIT(A) reads that during the appellate proceedings also the assessee was granted several opportunities to file the submissions and documents in support of grounds of appeal

, but she failed to avail the same to furnish the documents in support of the grounds of appeal. Learned CIT(A), therefore, found no infirmity in the assessment order and accordingly confirmed the same.

4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred this appeal before the Tribunal, raising various grounds, mainly on confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 49,37,974/-, on which taxes were fully paid as per IDS.

5. When the matter is called, neither the assessee nor any authorised representative entered appearance.

6. Learned DR submitted that in spite of grant of several opportunities, the assessee failed to avail the same and, therefore, prayed the Bench that the order of the learned CIT(A) may be upheld.

We have heard the learned DR and perused the material available on record. It could be seen from the impugned order that in spite of grant of several opportunities, the assessee failed to avail the same. It is also clear from the record that the assessee paid the total tax liability, but due to oversight, Form No. 3 was not submitted and that’s why could not obtain Form No. 4 (Acknowledgement of tax payment). At the time of hearing, though none appeared on behalf of the assessee, as per the grounds raised

before us, it is observed that the assessee prays to allow submission of additional supporting documents, which the assessee could not produce before the earlier authorities. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that giving an opportunity to the assessee to produce all the relevant documents before the Assessing Officer for fact verification would meet the ends of justice. Hence, we quash the orders of the authorities below and restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the same, after hearing the assessee. It is also made clear that this is the last opportunity to the assessee and no further opportunity will be given. Grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →