Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
Late B.Rami Reddy (Huf) L/R ... vs Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central ... on 8 April, 2021
1
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH "A", HYDERABAD
(Through Virtual Hearing)
BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
WTA No. 85/Hyd/2017
A.Y. 2004-05
Late B. Rami Reddy (HUF), VS DCIT,
L/R. M.Ramakrishna Central Circle-2,
Reddy, Hyderabad. Hyderabad.
PAN: AABHB 1951 Q
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao
Revenue by: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR
Date of hearing: 16/03/2021
Date of pronouncement: 08/04/2021
ORDER
PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-9, Hyderabad in appeal No. 0141/DCIT, CC-2, Hyd/2015-16, dated 25th May, 2017 passed U/s. 16(5) r.w.s 17 of Wealth Tax Act, 1957 for the A.Y. 2004-05.
2. The assessee has raised fourteen grounds in his appeal and they are extracted herein below for reference:-
"1. The order of the Ld. CWT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law.
2. The Ld. CWT (A) erred in partly allowing the appeal.2
3. The Ld. CWT (A) ought to have appreciated that the assessment completed U/s. 16(5) r.w.s 17 of W.T. Act, 1957 in the HUF status of the assessee is invalid.
4. The Ld. CWT(A) ought to have appreciated that the notice issued U/s. 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 is based on the "Will" which relates to "individual status" of the assessee but not to "HUF status" of the assessee.
5. The Ld. CWT (A) ought to have appreciated that the properties mentioned in the impugned "will" were held in individual capacity but not HUF capacity of assessee.
6. The Ld. CWT (A) ought to have annulled the assessment made in the assessee's case U/s. 16(5) r.w.s 17 of Wealth Tax Act, 1957.
7. Without prejudice to the grounds, the Ld. CWT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 13,320/- made in respect of land at Nandyal.
8. Without prejudice to the grounds, the Ld. CWT(A) ought to have appreciated that the appreciation of 10% adopted in respect of land at Nandyal has no basis.
9. Without prejudice to the grounds, the Ld. CWT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of debt claimed towards loan of Rs. 50 lakhs in respect of land at Kondapur.
10. Without prejudice to the grounds, the Ld. CWT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 14,89,722/- made in respect of plot at Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.
11. Without prejudice to the grounds, the Ld. CWT (A) ought to have appreciated that the appreciated of 10% adopted in respect of plot at Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad has no basis.
12. The appellant may add or alter or amend or modify or substitute or delete and / or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. Additional Grounds of appeal:
13. We would like to submit that as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) the ITAT has jurisdiction to examine the question of law which though not arose before the A.O. but arose before the ITAT for the first time.
14. The Ld. CIT(A) / A.O. ought to have provided exemption U/s.
5(1)(vi) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 in respect of the property situated at H.No. 8-2-293/82/BE/139, Nav Nirman Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad as the area of the same is less than five hundred square meters."
3
3. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before us that the assessee has filed additional evidence before the Tribunal as the same was not admitted by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR further submitted that the additional evidence submitted by the assessee relates to the substantial additions made by the Ld. AO which was further sustained by the ld. CIT (A). It was further submitted that due to several constraints the assessee was unable to furnish the same before the Ld. Revenue Authorities on the earlier instance. It was therefore pleaded that one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee in order to avoid miscarriage of the justice otherwise it would bring irreparable loss to the assessee.
4. The Ld. DR on the other hand, vehemently argued for sustaining the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities since the Ld. Revenue Authorities have provided proper opportunity to the assessee of being heard.
5. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. On perusing the o rder of the Ld. Revenue Authorities, we find that the assessee has not furnished sufficient evidence before the ld. Revenue Authorities and therefore, the Revenue had no other option but to make substantial additions in the hands of the assessee. This laps e 4 on the part of the assessee is not appreciable. However, it would have been appropriate on the part of the Ld. CIT(A) to admit the additional evidence filed before him and after obtaining a remand report from the Ld. A.O. pass a speaking order which he has failed to do so. Since, now the assessee has furnished fresh evidence before the Tribunal and since the addition made by the Ld. Revenue Authorities is substantial, in the interest of justice, we hereby remit the matter back to the file of the ld. AO fo r de- novo consideration with direction to admit and examine the additional evidence or any other evidence filed by the assessee and thereafter pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merit. We also caution the assessee to promptly co -operate before the Ld. Revenue Authorities failing which they shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order based on the materials on record.
6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove.
Pronounced in the open Court on the 08 th April, 2021.
Sd/- Sd/-
(P. MADHAVI DEVI) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Hyderabad, Dated: 08th April, 2021.
5
OKK
Copy to:-
1) Late B. Rami Reddy (HUF), L/R, M. Ramakrishna Reddy, C/o.
P. Murali & Co., Chartered Accountants, 6-3-655/2/3, 1 s t Floor, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.
2) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Hyderabad.
3) The CIT (A)-9, Hyderabad.
4) The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Hyderabad.
5) The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad
6) Guard File