Sri. B.V. Prabhu, Sira v. ITO, Tumkur

ITA 962/BANG/2010 | 2000-2001
Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 96221114 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN ABZPP2445G
Bench Bangalore
Appeal Number ITA 962/BANG/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant Sri. B.V. Prabhu, Sira
Respondent ITO, Tumkur
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 23-09-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 23-09-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 20-09-2011
Next Hearing Date 20-09-2011
Assessment Year 2000-2001
Appeal Filed On 05-08-2010
Judgment Text
PAGE 1 OF 4 ITA NO.962/BANG/2010 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH A BEFORE SHRI N K SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K J.M ITA NO.962/BANG/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01) SRI B V PRABHU PROP: PRABHU ENTERPRISES MAIN ROAD SIRA. - APPELLANT PAN NO.ABZPP 2445 G VS THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-2 TUMKUR. - RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING : 20/09/2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23/09/2011 APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAMASUBRAMANIYAN C.A . RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRATAP SINGH ADDL. CIT ORD ER PER GEORGE GEORGE K : THIS APPEAL INSTITUTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTE D AGAINST ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-II BANGALORE DATED 23/3/2010. THE ASST. YEAR CONCERNED IS 2000-01. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS:- THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS AN AUTHORIZ ED LPG DISTRIBUTOR OF INDIAN OIL CORPORATION. THE BOOK OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS AUDITED U/S 44AB OF THE ACT. FOR THE C ONCERNED ASST. PAGE 2 OF 4 ITA NO.962/BANG/2010 2 YEAR RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED DECLARING A TOTAL I NCOME AT RS.1 62 779/-. THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 23/3/2007 AND AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE ASSESSMEN T WAS COMPLETED VIDE ORDER DATED 31/12/2007. THE AO MADE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS:- (A) RS.3 00 000/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CREDITORS. (B) RS.8 000/- U/S 44AE OF THE ACT DISREGARDING THE LOS S OF RS.85 865/- CLAIMED IN THE RETURN. (C) RS.1 80 000/- UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. (D) RS.61 625/- TOWARDS DRAWINGS. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER ASSESSEE CARRI ED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY. 4. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DISPOSED OF THE MA TTER VIDE ORDER DATED 23/3/2010. THE CIT(A) WAS PLEASED TO H OLD THAT THE INITIATION OF ACTION U/S 147 OF THE ACT IS INVALID AND THE ASSESSMENT IS VOID AB INITIO. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE CIT(A) AT PARA 1.7 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER READS AS FOLLOWS:- 1.7 THUS IT WAS FOUND THAT ACTION TAKEN BY THE AO U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT IS INVALID AND THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 IS VOID AB INITIO AND IS THUS QUASHED. HAVING HELD THAT THE REASSESSMENT WAS INVALID THE CIT(A) HOWEVER DISPOSED OFF THE APPEAL ON MERITS. THE CIT(A) (I) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.3 00 000/- (II) UPHELD ADDITION OF RS.1 80 000/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT. PAGE 3 OF 4 ITA NO.962/BANG/2010 3 (III) UPHELD ESTIMATION OF INCOME U/S 44AE AT RS.8 000/-. (IV) RESTRICTED ADDITION TOWARDS LOW DRAWINGS AT RS.35 000/-. 5. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 2) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAVING HELD THAT THE INITIA TING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147 IS BAD IN LAW ERRED IN DECIDING THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 3) THAT THE LEARNED AO ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN AD DING A SUM OF RS.1 80 000/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT IGNORING THE DOCUME NTARY EVIDENCES ON RECORD. 4) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N NOT ADMITTING THE CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM SRI B VASUDE VAIAH AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT F URNISHED BEFORE AO. 5) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N UPHOLDING THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME U/S 44AE OF THE ACT IGNORI NG THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT CARRYING ON ANY TRANSPOR T BUSINESS AND HE HAD NOT GIVEN ANY TRUCK ON HIRE TO INDIAN OIL CO RPORATION. 6) THAT THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISALLOWING THE LOSS OF RS.85 865/- AND PLYING SECT ION 44AE OF THE ACT EVEN THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAD GOT COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.44AE(6) OF THE ACT. 7) THAT THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE GRO SS RECEIPTS FROM TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS AT RS.24 14 752/- AND EXPENSES CLAIMED ARE RS.23 18 165/- IS INCORRECT AND CONTRAR Y TO MATERIAL ON RECORD. 8) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N SUSTAINING ADDITION TOWARDS INSUFFICIENT DRAWINGS TO THE EXTEN T OF RS.35 000/-. 6. THE LEARNED AR CONTENDED THAT HAVING HELD THAT INITIATION OF ACTION U/S 147 IS BAD IN LAW THE CIT(A) HAS ERR ED IN DECIDING THE APPEAL ON MERITS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENU E HAS NOT FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THAT PART OF CIT(A)S ORDER HOLDING THAT THE REASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW. PAGE 4 OF 4 ITA NO.962/BANG/2010 4 7. THE LEARNED DR IN REPLY CONFIRMED THAT NO APPE AL HAS BEEN PREFERRED AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE CIT(A) IN PARA 1.7 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER HAD CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE REASSESSMENT COMPLETED I S BAD IN LAW AND VOID AB INITIO. THIS FINDING OF THE CIT(A) HAS ATT AINED FINALITY SINCE NO APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE. THEREF ORE THE ADDITION MADE IN THE REASSESSMENT HAS LOST ITS SUBSTRATUM. WE DO NOT SEE ANY VALID GROUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING OF THE C IT(A) AND HENCE UPHOLD THE SAME. SINCE WE HAVE ALLOWED THE LEGAL I SSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WE DO NOT SEE IT APPROPRIATE TO ADJUDICAT E THE OTHER ISSUES AGITATED BY THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT; IN OTHER WORDS N O FINDING IS BEING GIVEN ON THE ISSUES RAISED ON MERIT. CONSEQUENTLY THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 9. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 23 RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2011 AT BANGALORE. SD/- SD/- (N K SAINI) (GEORGE GEORGE K) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COPY TO : 1. THE REVENUE 2. THE ASSESSEE 3. THE C IT CONCERNED. 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5. DR 6. GF MSP/ BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT BANGALORE.