M/s Karteeka Constructions,, Visakhapatnam v. The ITO, Ward-1., Gudivada

ITA 41/VIZ/2007 | 2002-2003
Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 4125314 RSA 2007
Bench Visakhapatnam
Appeal Number ITA 41/VIZ/2007
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 5 month(s)
Appellant M/s Karteeka Constructions,, Visakhapatnam
Respondent The ITO, Ward-1., Gudivada
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 22-07-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 22-07-2010
Assessment Year 2002-2003
Appeal Filed On 22-02-2007
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.29/VIZAG/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 ITO WARD-1 GUDIVADA KARTEEKA CONSTRUCTIONS LOKUMUDIGARUVU KAIKALURU (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) GIR NO.K-384 ITA NO.41/VIZAG/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 KARTEEKA CONSTRUCTIONS LOKUMUDIGARUVU KAIKALURU ITO WARD-1 GUDIVADA (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI G.V.N. HARI CA ORDER PER SHRI S.K. YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. SINCE THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER THESE ARE BEING DISPOS ED OFF THROUGH THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE WE EXTRACT THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THESE APPEALS AS UNDER:- ITA 29 OF 2007 : 1. THE CIT(A) ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CA SE IN HOLDING THAT THE PARTNERS HAVE CREDITWORTHINESS IN INTRODUC TION OF NEW CAPITAL. 2. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE VERIFIED AND FOUND THAT MA NY OF THE PARTNERS COULD NOT GIVE PROPER EXPLANATIONS FOR THE INVESTMENTS MADE. 3. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CAPITAL INTRO DUCTIONS AS THE SOURCES EXPLAINED ARE JUST SUFFICIENT FOR THEIR LIV ELIHOOD AND THERE WAS NO POSSIBILITY OF ANY SAVINGS IN ORDER TO INTRO DUCE THE SAME IN THE FIRM. 2 4. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE VERIFIED AND EXAMINED THE STATEMENTS GIVEN BY EACH PARTNER BY HIMSELF IN ABSENCE OF ANY COMMENT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PA RTNERS WHILE FURNISHING HIS REMAND REPORT AND SHOULD HAVE CONFIR MED THE ADDITIONS MADE. 5. THE CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT RAISED ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE SOURCE OF CAPITAL AND CREDIT WO RTHINESS OF THE PARTNERS. IN FACT THE A.O. HAS NOT CONCLUDED ANY W HERE IN HIS REPORT REGARDING HIS SATISFACTION ON THE CREDITWORT HINESS OF THE PARTNERS. BUT THE A.O. HAS SIMPLY RECORDED THE STA TEMENTS FROM THE PARTNERS AND SUBMITTED THE SAME TO THE APPELLAT E AUTHORITY WITHOUT GIVING HIS OPINION ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE LAND HOLDINGS OR THE SUFFICIENCY IN AVAILABILITY OF FUND S FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW CAPITALS. 6. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF H EARING. ITA 41 OF 2007: 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) VIJAYAWADA FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2002- 03 IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND LAW. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING TO CON SIDER CREDIT FOR TDS WHEN NOT DISPUTED THE BIFURCATION OF INCOME BETWEEN THE TWO FIRMS RELATING TO THE CONTRACT AWARDED TO THE MANAGING PA RTNER. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONSIDERING CRED IT FOR THE TDS CERTIFICATE AS THE SAME IS A DUPLICATE WHICH WAS NO T PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED BY ONGC WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE INDEM NITY BOND FILED. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE CL AIM FOR TDS WHEN THE INCOME AS A RESULT OF BIFURCATION BETWEEN TWO F IRMS ACCEPTED. 5. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF H EARING. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IMPUGNED ISSUES RAISED IN THESE APPEALS ARE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN TH E CASE OF NAGASAI CONSTRUCTIONS LOKUMUDIGARUVU KAIKALURU VS. ITO IN ITA NO.40 AND 53 OF 2007 IN WHICH THE MATTER WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE F ILE OF THE A.O. WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES AFRESH AND IF NEED BE THE PARTNERS CAN BE EXAMINED WITH REGARD TO THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS ALO NG WITH CORRESPONDING EVIDENCE AFTER AFFORDING A PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BE ING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEES. BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL THAT THIS MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR RE- ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUES AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF E VIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEES. WE THEREFORE FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF NAGA SAI CONSTRUCTIONS LOKUMUDIGARUVU SET ASIDE TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A) 3 AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE IMPUGNED ISSUES AFTER AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. IF NEED BE THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM MAY BE EXAMINE D. 3. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WEL L AS THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22.7.2010 SD/- SD/- (BR BASKARAN) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VG/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM DATED 22 ND JULY 2010 COPY TO 1 ITO WARD-1 GUDIVADA 2 M/S. KARTIKA CONSTRUCTIONS MG. PR. SRI UPPLAPATI GIRIDHAR KUMAR LOKUMUDIGARUVU KAIKALURU MANDAL KRISHNA DIST. 3 THE CIT VIJAYAWADA 4 THE CIT(A) VIJAYAWADA 5 THE DR ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM