Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
T. Vinayak Ravi Reddy, Hyd, Hyderabad vs Acit, Circle-16(2), Hyd, Hyderabad on 31 May, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH "B", HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1237, 1238 & 1239/Hyd/2016 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 T. Venkat Ram Reddy, vs. Asst. Commissioner of Hyderabad. Income-tax, Circle - 16(2), Hyderabad.
PAN - AAWPT6892M
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA Nos. 1240, 1241 & 1242/Hyd/2016
Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 T. Vinayak Ravi Reddy, vs. Asst. Commissioner of Hyderabad. Income-tax, Circle - 16(2), Hyderabad.
PAN - ABAPT 1317Q
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri B. Shanti Kumar
Revenue by : Smt. Anjala Sahu
Date of hearing 30/05/2018
Date of pronouncement 31/05/2018
O RDE R
PER BENCH:
These appeals filed by two assessees are directed against separate orders of CIT(A) - 4, all dated, 14/07/2016. Since identical issue is involved in these appeals, we find it convenient to dispose of these appeals by way of this consolidated order.
2 ITA No. 1237/Hyd/16 and othersShri T. Venkat Ram Reddy and Shri T. Vinayak Ravi Reddy
2. Briefly the facts as taken from ITA No. 1237/Hyd/2016 in the case of T. Venkat Ram Reddy for AY 2008-09 are that the assessee is a Chairman of M/s Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd. and receiving income from salary, house property, business, capital gains and other sources, filed his return of income for AY 2008-09 on 30/08/2008 declaring income of Rs. 1,78,63,460/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1). Subsequently, the case was reopened u/s 147 by issue of notice u/s 148 after duly recording the reasons for reopening which were communicated to the assessee. The assessee filed his objections for reopening of assessment. The Assessing Officer rejected the objections of the assessee. On the basis of sworn statement recorded during the search and seizure operation conducted in the case of M/s. South Indian Educational Society Trust, Mumbai it was seen that the assessee has received Rs.2,00,00,00/- from M/s. South Indian Educational Society Trust in cash during the F.Y.2007-08. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment by adding back Rs.2 crores to the income returned.
3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) raising the following grounds of appeal:
"1. The notice issued by the AO is bad in law and the reopening of assessment is not in accordance with the provisions of IT law in as much as there is not tangible material on record."
2. The AO erred both in law and on facts in relying on third party statements while making addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- as unaccounted credits.
3. Any other ground of appeal that may be urged at the time of hearing."
4. The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- made by the AO towards unaccounted credits, but, directed the AO to disallow the assessee's claim of deduction u/s 80G of Rs. 74,69,608/-.
5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us contending that the CIT(A) has not adjudicated the ground raised by the assessee 3 ITA No. 1237/Hyd/16 and others Shri T. Venkat Ram Reddy and Shri T. Vinayak Ravi Reddy regarding reopening of assessment made by the AO u/s 147 of the Act.
6. Before us, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that before the CIT(A) the assessee filed written submissions, which were extracted by the CIT(A) in his order at pages 3 to 6 wherein it was stated, inter-alia, that in the absence of any tangible material to enable the AO to believe that income chargeable to tax escaped assessment in the assessee's case, the reopening of assessment is not according to law. He, therefore, submitted that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the ground raised by the assessee on the reopening of assessment, hence the matter may be remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate the ground raised on reopening of assessment.
7. Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of revenue authorities.
8. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. As contended by the ld. AR of the assessee, the CIT(A) has not at all given her findings or adjudicated the ground raised by the assessee with regard to reopening of assessment made by the AO. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remit the file back to her with a direction to adjudicate the ground raised by the assessee regarding reopening of assessment in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
9. As the facts and grounds raised in all other appeals are materially identical to that of ITA No. 1237/Hyd/2016 (supra), following the conclusions drawn therein, we restore all these appeals to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication of the ground raised on reopening of assessment in all the appeals.
4 ITA No. 1237/Hyd/16 and othersShri T. Venkat Ram Reddy and Shri T. Vinayak Ravi Reddy
10. In the result, all the appeals under consideration are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open Court on 31 st May, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
(P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Hyderabad, Dated: 31 st May, 2018
kv
Copy to:-
1) T. Venkat Ram Reddy, 2) T. Vinayak Ravi Reddy, C/o B. Shanthi Kumar, Advocate, 111, Taramandal Complex, 5-9-13, Saifabad, Hyderabad.
3) ACIT, Circle - 16(2), Income tax towers, AC Guards, Hyderabad.
4) CIT(A) - 4, Hyd.
5) Pr. CIT - 4, Hyd.
6) The Departmental Representative, I.T.A.T., Hyderabad.
7) Guard File
S.N0 De scri pti on Date Intls
1. Draft dictated on Sr.P.S./P.S
2. Draft placed before author Sr.P.S/PS
3 Draf t propo sed & pl ac ed b ef ore the se con d Mem ber JM/AM
4 Draf t di scu ssed/a ppr ov ed by sec on d Mem ber JM/AM
5 Approv ed Draft comes to the Sr.P.S./PS Sr.P.S./P.S
6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr. P.S./P.S.
7. Fi l e sent to the B enc h Cl erk Sr.P.S./P.S
8 Dat e o n whi ch f i l e goe s t o t he H ea d Cl erk
9 Date of Di sp atch of order