Sentini Bioproducts Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, Central Circle-II(3), Hyderabad
[Citation -2019-LL-0923-81]

Citation 2019-LL-0923-81
Appellant Name Sentini Bioproducts Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent Name DCIT, Central Circle-II(3), Hyderabad
Court ITAT-Hyderabad
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 23/09/2019
Assessment Year 2007-08
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags weight of evidence • actual consideration • differential amount • unexplained investment • unregistered sale agreement • additional grounds • original agreement
Bot Summary: The proceedings of the authorities below are arbitrary, contrary to law, against weight of evidence and probabilities of the appellant s case. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered all the contentions of the appellant raised in the grounds of appeal and in the written submissions filed by the appellant. 69-B of the IT Act by the A.O. without considering the explanation dated 26/11/2014 of the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the case. The CIT failed to consider the written submissions, dated 22/05/2015 filed by the appellant before the predecessor CIT. The appellant craves leave of the Hon ble Tribunal to kindly read the same as part of these grounds of appeal. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal holding that in the context of the information brought on record, through the findings of search, it may be reasonable to observe that though it is a fact that the original agreements of sale deeds, dated 13/03/2006 were not available, they are the unregistered agreements for sale signed by both the prospective vendor and vendee, which is not denied by the appellant. The appellant reserves its right to raise additional grounds, if any, at the time of hearing of appeal and the Hon ble Tribunal may be pleased to allow the appellant to raise the same in the interest of justice and equity. For the grounds mentioned above, it is prayed that the Hon ble Tribunal may be pleased to set aside orders of the authorities below and allow the appeal and pass order or orders, as the Hon ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.


IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH , HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.629/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2007-08 M/s. Sentini Bioproducts Pvt Vs. DCIT, Ltd., Central Circle-II(3), Sentini House, Plot No.1229, Hyderabad. Road No.60, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-34 PAN: AAJC0609P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Sri Mookambikeyan S - DR Date of hearing: 23/09/2019 Date of pronouncement 23/09/2019 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM. This appeal is filed by assessee against order of Ld. CIT(A)-12, Hyderabad in appeal No. 0288/2014-15, dated 25/02/2016 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153A & 250(6) of Act for Asst. Year 2007-08. 2. assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. proceedings of authorities below are arbitrary, contrary to law, against weight of evidence and probabilities of appellant s case. 2. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered all contentions of appellant raised in grounds of appeal and in written submissions filed by appellant. 2 3. CIT(A) erred in confirming assessment proceedings with regard to addition made to total income U/s. 69-B of IT Act by A.O. without considering explanation dated 26/11/2014 of appellant in facts and circumstances of case. 4. A.O. erred in observing in assessment order that original agreements were not available and only photostat copies of agreement were available. said alleged photostat copies of agreements cannot be treated as evidence in termining income. A.O. without considering explanation, confirmed proposed amount of Rs. 64,36,520/- by adding same to total income U/s. 69B of Act. 5. CIT(A) erred in distinguishing decisions relied upon by appellant reported in 216 ITR 301 (AP) 46 Taxmann 372 (Delhi) and judgment of this Hon ble Tribunal in ITA No. 1755 to 1757/Hyd/2012, dated 23/04/2014. 6. CIT (A) failed to consider written submissions, dated 22/05/2015 filed by appellant before predecessor CIT. appellant craves leave of Hon ble Tribunal to kindly read same as part of these grounds of appeal. 7. CIT(A) erred in holding that A.O. denied allegation of appellant-company that they were not provided with original agreement, stating that original agreements were not available. Concluding that it is common practice in real restate that unofficial agreement is entered, taking actual consideration, which will be registered later on government value, A.O. completed assessment by bringing differential amount of Rs. 64,99,520/- to tax on said four transactions as unexplained investments. 8. CIT(A) erred in dismissing appeal holding that in context of information brought on record, through findings of search, it may be reasonable to observe that though it is fact that original agreements of sale deeds, dated 13/03/2006 were not available, they are unregistered agreements for sale signed by both prospective vendor and vendee, which is not denied by appellant. 9. CIT(A) erred in not considering section 65 of Indian Evidence Act, where A.O. added Rs. 64,36,520/- to total income under section 69B of Act. 10. appellant reserves its right to raise additional grounds, if any, at time of hearing of appeal and Hon ble Tribunal may be pleased to allow appellant to raise same in interest of justice and equity. 11. For grounds mentioned above, it is prayed that Hon ble Tribunal may be pleased to set aside orders of authorities below and allow appeal and pass order or orders, as Hon ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in circumstances of case. 3. At outset, we observed from order sheet entries that case was adjourned on many occasions for various reasons at request of Learned Counsel for Assessee. Even in last 3 occasion i.e., on 08/07/2019 case was adjourned to 23/09/2019 at request of assessee and same was informed to both parties in open court. However, on date of hearing i.e., on 23/09/2019 none appeared on behalf of assessee before Bench which shows lackadaisical approach of assessee in pursuing its appeal. Moreover, we find that Ld. CIT (A) has passed detailed order dismissing appeal of assessee. Since assessee has not confronted with reasons adduced by Revenue for making addition and sustaining same, we do not have any other option but to confirm order of Ld. Revenue Authorities. Hence, we hereby uphold order of Ld. CIT (A). 4. In result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed. Pronounced in open Court on 23 rd September, 2019. Sd/- Sd/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated:23 rd September, 2019 OKK Copy to:- 1) M/s. Sentini Bioproducts Pvt Ltd C/o. M/s. Shaik Jeelani Basha, P. Vasudeva Reddy, Shaik Altaf and M. Suprabhat Reddy, Advocates, H.No.6-3-609/79, Anandnagar Colony, Khairtabad, Hyderabad 04. 2) DCIT, Central Circle-II(3),Hyderabad. 3) CIT(A)-XII, Hyderabad 4) Pr. CIT-XII, Hyderabad 5) DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 6) Guard File Sentini Bioproducts Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, Central Circle-II(3), Hyderabad
Report Error