SHELADIA ASSOCIATES INC,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-2, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 570/HYD/2020Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 October 2021AY 2008-093 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's consequential order had no jurisdiction to ignore a duly passed rectification order in the assessee's favour. The Assessing Officer also lacked jurisdiction to question the correctness of the earlier order on merits or legality.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a rectification petition which was accepted. However, the Assessing Officer's subsequent consequential order did not consider the earlier accepted rectification order. The Assessing Officer stated that the basis for the earlier claim was unclear.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer has the jurisdiction to disregard a prior order passed under Section 154 rectification proceedings. The legality and correctness of the Assessing Officer's action in ignoring a previously accepted rectification order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘A’ BENCH, HYDERABAD.

For Appellant: Shri Ramamohan Giri

M/s. Sheladia Associates, Inc Secunderabad. PAN AAFCS 7792F …..Appellant. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation-2, Hyderabad. …..Respondent. Appellant By : Shri Ramamohan Giri. Respondent By : Shri Paruchuri Dinesh. (D.R.) Date of Hearing : 18.10.2021. Date of Pronouncement : 27.10.2021. O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for Asst. Year 2008-09 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad-10 order dt.17.03.2020 passed in case No.ITBA / APL / S / 250 / 2019-20 / 1026687606(1) in proceedings under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Coming to the assessee's sole substantive grievance that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in exercising their 154 jurisdiction, we note that the Assessing Officer’s consequential order dt.4.1.2019 in issue had not taken into consideration order in its yet another 154 petition dt.5.3.2012 accepted on 10.05.20212. The Assessing Officer observes that the same is not considered since “it is not clear as to on what basis the assessee's claim was allowed.” We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant stand as the Assessing Officer’s impugned consequential order has no jurisdiction to ignore an order duly passed in assessee's favour in rectification jurisdiction. Nor could the assessing authority be held to have any jurisdiction for question of correctness thereof on merit or on legality; as the case may be. We therefore accept the assessee's instant sole substantive grievance for this precise reason alone. The CIT(A)’s order under challenge affirming the Assessing Officer’s action to this is held as not sustainable in law therefore.

No other ground has been pressed before us. 3. This assessee's appeal is allowed in above terms.

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

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →