Amit Kumar Agarwal (HUF) , Hyderabad v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(3), Hyderabad

ITA 275/Hyd/2019 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 04-05-2021 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 27522514 RSA 2019
Assessee PAN AABHA3253J
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 275/Hyd/2019
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
Appellant Amit Kumar Agarwal (HUF) , Hyderabad
Respondent Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(3), Hyderabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 04-05-2021
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted DB-B
Tribunal Order Date 04-05-2021
Last Hearing Date 03-03-2021
First Hearing Date 03-05-2021
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 05-03-2019
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. GODARA JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 275/HYD/2019 (A.Y. 2010 - 11) ITA NO. 1343/HYD/2019 (A.Y.: 2013 - 14) AMIT KUMAR AGARWAL (HUF) HYDERABAD. PAN: AABHA 3253 J VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 7(3) HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI K.C. DEVDAS REVENUE BY: SHRI ROHIT MUJUMDAR DR DATE OF HEARING: 03/05/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04 /05/2021 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY AM: BOTH THE CAPTIONED APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEY ARE FILED AGAINST THE ORDER S OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 3 HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO S . 0108/ITO - 7(3)/HYD/CIT(A) - 3/2017 - 18 DATED 19/12/2018 (ITA NO. 275/HYD/2019) AND APPEAL NO. 10323/ITO - 7(3)/HYD/CIT(A) - 3/2018 - 19 DATED 07/06/2019 (ITA NO. 1343/HYD/2019) PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 AND U/S. 25 0(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.YS. 2010 - 11 AND 2013 - 14 RESPECTIVELY. 2 2. IN ITA NO. 275/HYD/2019 T HE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED S EVEN GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL AND THEY ARE EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: - 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 49 78 038/ - IS COMPLETELY ERRONEOUS AND UNSUSTAINABLE BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S. 147 OF THE ACT WHICH WAS MADE ON THE PREMISE OF BORROWED SATISFACTION AND THERE WAS NO INDEPENDENT APPLICATION OF MIND AND THEREFORE THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE BAD IN LAW INVALID AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THEREFORE MUST BE QUASHED. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO OBSERVE THAT THE ENTIRE MATERIAL OF PURCHASE AND SALES WAS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THERE WAS NO FRESH / TANGIBLE MATERIAL BOUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REASONS RECORDED ACCORDINGLY THE PROVISIONS OF REOPENING ARE SQUARELY NOT APPLICABLE IN THE GIVEN CASE. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT ALL PURCHASES AND SALES ARE SUPPORTED BY BILLS INVOICES AND STOCK TALLY HAS BEEN MAINTAINED SHOWING INWARD AND OUTWARD QUANTITIES RELATING TO PURCHASE AND SALES OF IRON ORE ON DAY TO DAY BASIS AND HENCE ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 19 78 038/ - . 5. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO NOTE THAT QUANTITATIVE DETAILS ARE MATCHING AND QUALITY OF IRON ORE PURCHASED HAS BEEN SOLD TO DIFFERENT PARTIES OF REPUTE WHICH ARE ACCOUNTED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THEREFORE CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 49 78 038/ - . 6. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN RELYING ON THE STATEMENT MADE BY SUDHER YADAV AND CAME TO AN ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION WHEN THE STATEMENT WAS RECORDED BEHIND THE BACK OF THE APPELLANT AND A COPY OF WHICH WAS NEITHER GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT NOR WAS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY GIVEN FOR CROSS EXAMINATION THUS VIOLATING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THEREFORE THE ADDITION OF RS. 49 78 038/ - OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DELETED. 7. ANY OTHER GROUND OR GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3 3 . IN ITA NO. 1343/HYD/2019 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SIX GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL AND THEY ARE EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: - 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5 LAKHS IN AN ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 DATED 28/12/ 2018 IS UNSUSTAINABLE BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S. 147 OF THE ACT WHICH WAS MADE ON THE PREMISE OF BORROWED SATISFACTION AND FAILED TO NOTE THAT THERE WAS NO INDEPENDENT APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE OUGHT TO HAVE CLEARLY HELD THAT THE ENTIRE RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE BAD IN LAW INVALID AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THEREFORE OUGHT TO HAVE QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 148 OF THE ACT DOE3S NOT MENTIONED THE QUANTUM OF INCOME OR INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT AND HENCE THE REASONS RECORDED SUFFERS FROM INFIRMITY AND THEREFORE THE REOPENING AND REASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS ARE BAD IN LAW INVALID AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION CALLING FOR QUASHING OF THE RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO NOTE THAT NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS NOT WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE FINANC IAL YEAR IN WHICH THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FURNISHED AND THEREFORE OUGHT TO HAVE CLEARLY HELD THAT THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE WITHOUT JURISDICTION BAD IN LAW INVALID AND THEREFORE OUGHT TO HAVE QUASHED THE RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 5. THE L D. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5 LAKHS WHICH IS TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE AND THEREFORE CALLS FOR DELETION. 6. ANY OTHER GROUND OR GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 4. AT THE OUTSET LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED EX - PARTE ORDERS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AYS 2010 - 11 AND 2013 - 14 WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND 4 DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MA Y BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD CIT (A) IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD PROVIDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER ON THE GIVEN DATES OF HEARING NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). THEREFORE THE LD. CIT (A) HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO PASS EX - PARTE ORDERS BASED ON THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HENCE IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ORDERS PASS ED BY THE LD. CIT(A) DO NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES BEFORE US WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THOUGH THE LD. CIT(A ) HAS PROVIDED SEVERAL OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEES NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEES BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON THE GIVEN DATES OF HEARING EXCEPT FILING CERTAIN WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE A.Y. 2010 - 11 AND 2013 - 14 . THEREFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WAS LEFT W ITH NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEALS EX - PARTE. HOWEVER KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES BEFORE US AND THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE APPEALS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE HEREBY REMIT ALL THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT (A) IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE APPEALS AFRESH ON MERITS AFTER AFFORDING ONE MORE 5 OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. AT THE SAME BREATH WE ALSO HEREBY CAUTION THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTLY CO - OPER ATE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) IN THE PROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH THE LD. CIT (A) SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON THE RECORD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 04 TH MAY 2021. SD/ - SD/ - (S.S. GODARA) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD DATED: 04 TH M AY 2021 OKK COPY TO: - 1) AMIT KUMAR AGARWAL (HUF) C/O. G.D. UPADHYAY & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS 15 - 1 - 53 SIDDIAMBER BAZAR HYDERABAD TELANGANA 12. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 7(3) 8 TH FLOOR SIGNATURE TOWERS KONDAPUR HYDERABAD. 3) THE LD. CIT(A) - 3 HYDERABAD. 4) THE PR. CIT - 3 HYDERABAD. 5) THE DR ITAT HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE