INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), HYDERABAD vs. SOUTHEND PROJECTS & FOUNDATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1720/HYD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 October 2021AY 2010-114 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Revenue cannot be considered an aggrieved party when the Assessing Officer files a favorable remand report. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition of Rs. 52.18 Crores made under Section 68. The Assessing Officer had initially made the addition, but later in a remand report, stated that the assessee had discharged its onus for Rs. 49.18 Crores.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue is an aggrieved party when the Assessing Officer's remand report is favorable to the assessee, and if the addition under Section 68 can be sustained in such circumstances.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI S.S. GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Shri M. Chandramouleeswara
For Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR
Hearing: 07/10/2021Pronounced: 27/10/2021
1.

This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Kurnool in case No.0104/CIT(A)/KNL/2016-17, dated 06/06/2018 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the Assessment Year 2010-11.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The Revenue has raised the following substantive grounds in its appeal and they are extracted herein below for reference:

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case.

2.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 52.18 Crs made by the Assessing Officer U/s. 68 of the Act. 2.1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee without properly examining the investor companies which information was already available in the record. 2.2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in concluding that the credits were explained to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer ignoring the fact that the opinion expressed by the Assessing Officer in the Remand Report is that the assessee has discharged its onus as envisaged U/s. 68 of the Act to the extent of Rs. 49.18 Crs. 2.3. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the report of the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax before deciding the appeal wherein the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax has included certain observations which made value additions to the Remand Report of the Assessing Officer.

3.

Any other ground(s) that may be urged at the time of hearing.”

3. Mr. Y.V.S.T. Sai / Ld. CIT-DR invited our attention to the Revenue’s sole substantive ground seeking to revive section 68 addition of unexplained cash credits of Rs. 52.18 Crs made in the course of assessment framed on 28/02/2013 and reversed in the CIT(A) lower appellate order. He sought to buttress the Assessing Officer’s detailed reasoning in the assessment order that the assessee had filed to prove genuineness and creditworthiness of the share application / premium in issue. Mr. Sai has also filed a petition dated 3/2/2021 seeking to place on record Fifteen documents running into 132 pages including CBI Supplementary Charge Sheet, a statement of Sri Kodali Srinivasa Reddy dated 26/12/2011, Sri Kodali Srinivasa Rao, dated 26/12/2011, 12/5/2012 and 14/5/2012; all made before the CBI, details of the assessee’s invested entities on Ministry of Corporate Affairs website allegedly striking all of the, SEBI’s order dated 4/9/2013 and the Securities Appellate Tribunal’s decision dated 16/10/2007, respectively. Clubbed with this, he has placed on record a paper-book running into 127 pages including the Assessing Officer’s remand report dated 29/06/2015 placed before the CIT(A).

4.

We find from a perusal of the assessing authority’s remand report’s conclusion in para 3, page 14 that he had held the assessee to have discharged its onus of proving identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the share application / premium amount of Rs. 49.18 Crs which ultimately led to the CIT(A) passing the impugned order granting relief.

5.

We deem it appropriate at this stage to quote the case law Smt. B. Jayalakshmi vs. ACIT (2018) 96 taxmann.com 486 (Mad.) and CIT vs. D.M. Purnesh (2020) 426 ITR 169 (Kar.)(HC) that the Revenue cannot be held as an aggrieved party once the Assessing Officer files a favourable remand report in appropriate proceedings. We therefore decline the Revenue’s foregoing solely substantive ground raised in the instant appeal in very terms.

6.

This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27th October, 2021.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →