CONCAP HOLDINGS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 702/HYD/2020Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 September 2021AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was contradictory regarding the appearance of the assessee and the consideration of written submissions. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing effective opportunities of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns an order passed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte, despite the assessee claiming to have filed written submissions. The core issue is an addition made in the CPC processing regarding exempt income.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order while allegedly considering written submissions. The dispute also involves the correct treatment of exempt income and rectification of intimation under Section 143(1).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI S.S. GODARA & SHRI L.P. SAHU

For Respondent: Shri Sunku Srinivas, DR
Hearing: 08.09.2021Pronounced: 09.09.2021

Income Tax (Appeal) – 1, Hyderabad order dt.23.09.2020 passed in Case No.10674/2019-20/ITO-1(4)/Hyd/CIT(A)-1/2020-21 involving proceedings under Section 154 of Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’].

Heard the learned departmental representative. Case files perused. None appears at assessee’s behalf. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

The assessee has pleaded the following pleadings in this present appeal :

“1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 1 is contrary too law & facts of the case.

2. The appellant contends that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has passed the order on the basis of the following facts which are factually incorrect A. The original Return of income was filed on 26.10.2018, well within the extended due date of 31.10.2018. B. The appellant has not filed any revised return. In response to intimation u/s 143(1) of the IT Act, pointing out certain defects in the original return of income, the appellant has filed rectified return on 22.01.2020, filing up the schedule BP of exempt income. Hence, the question of filing any revised return of income beyond due date does not arise.

3.

The appellant contends that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not considering the fact that the CPC has rectified the intimation when similar mistake has happened in appellants case for the assessment year 2016-17. 4 The appellant contends that due to oversight the exempt income schedule was not filled up in the original return of income and the same was rectified subsequently. Hence the adjustment made in the intimation u/s 143(1) adding exempt income to the returned income be deleted.” 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend alter or delete any or all the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

4. Coming to the sole substantive issue regarding addition of Rs.2,46,12,550/- made in the CPC processing dated 27.01.2020 u/s 154, learned departmental representative fails to dispute that the CIT(A) on the one hand has made it clear that “none” had appeared for the assessee, whereas, on the other hand he has taken into consideration its alleged written submissions.

5. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance back to the CIT(A) for his appropriate adjudication afresh after affording three effective opportunities of hearing to the taxpayer.

6.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

More judgments on Section 154

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →