DCIT, Central Circle-4, Hyderabad v. Smt. Saroj Agarwal, Hyderabad

ITA 1696/HYD/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 169622514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN ABFPA5475R
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 1696/HYD/2010
Duration Of Justice 8 month(s) 21 day(s)
Appellant DCIT, Central Circle-4, Hyderabad
Respondent Smt. Saroj Agarwal, Hyderabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 22-09-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 22-09-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 22-08-2011
Next Hearing Date 22-08-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 31-12-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. ASHA VIJAYA RAGHAVAN JUDICIAL MEMBER A ND SHRI AKBER BASHA ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R ITA NOS.52 TO 55/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2003-04 TO 2006-07 SAROJ AGARWAL HYDERABAD. (PAN ABFPA 5475 R) VS DY. CIT CENTRAL CIR-4 CIR-4 HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) ITA NOS.1693 TO1696/HYD/2010 ASST.YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2006-07 DY. CIT CENTRAL CIR-4 -VS- CIR-4 HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) SAROJ AGARWAL HYDERABAD. (PAN ABFPA 5475 R) ( RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI A.C. GANGAIAH DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI D.D. GOYAL DATE OF HEARING: 22-9-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22-9-20 11. O R D E R PER BENCH: THESE EIGHT APPEALS FOUR BY THE ASSESSEE AND OTH ER FOUR BY THE DEPARTMENT ARISE OUT OF SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT (A)-VII HYDERABAD AND THEY ARE PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 200 2-03 TO 2006-07. ITA NOS 52 TO 55 AND OTHERS. SAROJ AGARWAL HYDERABAD. 2 SINCE COMMON AND IDENTICAL ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN A LL THESE CROSS APPEALS THESE ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER AND DISPOSED O F BY THIS COMBINED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE COMMON GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) MADE ON 25-10-2010 IN ITA NO.359/TR/DCIT-CC-4/CIT(A)-VII/10-11 IS NOT CORRECT EITHER IN LAW OR IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E. 2. THE CIT (A) IS NOT CORRECT IN ESTIMATING THE PR OFIT AT 5.5% ON THE UN-ACCOUNTED TURNOVER. 3. THE CIT (A) HAS NO BASIS FOR ESTIMATING THE PROF IT AT 5.5% AND REJECTING THE REASONABLE PROFIT ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. ANY OTHER GROUND OR GROUNDS THAT SHALL BE URGED AT THE TIME OF APPEAL HEARING. 3. THE COMMON GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE READ A S UNDER:- I. THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IS ERRONEOUS ON FACTS . II. THE CIT (A) HAS NOT DISCUSSED THE MERIT S ON RECORD AND THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERAT ION. III. THE CIT (A) ORDER IS ERRONEOUS ON FACT S FOR DELETING PEAK PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO RS.1 20 79 832. THE ASSESSE E HIMSELF AGREED THAT NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHERE MAIN TAINED FOR THAT PERIOD ACCORDINGLY THE AO WORKED OUT PEAK ITA NOS 52 TO 55 AND OTHERS. SAROJ AGARWAL HYDERABAD. 3 PURCHASES BASED ON SEIZED MATERIAL FOUND DURING SEA RCH OPERATION. IV. THE CIT (A)S ORDER REDUCED THE PROFIT P ERCENTAGE ON ADDITIONAL TURNOVER FOUND DURING SEARCH OPERATION F ROM 10% TO 5.5 IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREAD Y CLAIMED EXPENDITURE FOR THAT YEAR AND THE INCOME ON ADDITIO NAL TURNOVER IS EXCESS HENCE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM ANY EXPENDITURE. ACCORDINGLY AO WORKED OUT THE PROFIT PERCENTAGE AT HIGHER RATE OF 10% ON ADDITIONAL TURN OVER FOUND DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION. V. THE DIVISION OF PROFIT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND RK AGARWAL CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS THERE IS NO AGREEM ENT EXISTING BETWEEN THE TWO AND NO AGREEMENT FOR SHARI NG THE PROFIT RATIO. VI. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE RAISED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTA L REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (A) HAD GIVEN SOME RELIEFS TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT PASSING A SPEAKING/REASONED ORDER. HENCE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO T HE FILE OF THE CIT (A) FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION FOR WHICH THE LEARNED COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION EXCEPT STATING THAT WH ILE ADJUDICATING THE APPEALS THE CIT (A) DID NOT DECIDE THE ISSUE RELAT ING TO GROUND NO.4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. HENCE IT IS S UBMITTED THAT THIS GROUND ALSO MAY BE DECIDED AFRESH BY THE CIT (A). UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE FEEL IT PROPER AND JUST TO RESTORE THE ENTIRE ISSUES INCLUDING THAT OF GROUND NO.4 RAISED BY THE ITA NOS 52 TO 55 AND OTHERS. SAROJ AGARWAL HYDERABAD. 4 ASSESSEE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (A) FOR FRESH CONS IDERATION WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER. 4. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURP OSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22-9-2011. SD/- SD/- SMT.ASHA VIJAYA RAGHAVAN AKBER BASHA JUDICIAL MEMBER. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. DT/- 22-9-2011. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4 HYDERABAD. 2.SAROJ AGARWAL. 4-1-569 RELIANCAE COMPLEX TROOP BAZAR HYDERABAD. 3.CIT (A)-VII HYDERABAD. 4. CIT AP HYDERABAD. 5. THE DR ITAT HYDERABAD. ITA NOS 52 TO 55 AND OTHERS. SAROJ AGARWAL HYDERABAD. 5