BHASKARA KAMESWARI TENNETI,HYDERBAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERBAD

ITA 989/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 August 2021AY 2015-164 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue of turnover reconciliation back to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification. This was based on the agreement of both parties that the matter primarily involved reconciliation rather than substantive adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2015-16 concerned a difference between the profit and loss account and Form 26AS regarding turnover. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without providing a proper opportunity for reconciliation.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without granting a proper opportunity for reconciliation of turnover differences. Whether the addition made by the AO was justified in the absence of supporting material and when returns were filed based on audited accounts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘ B ‘ BENCH, HYDERABAD.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas

O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for Asst. Year 2015-16 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Hyderabad’s order dt.08.04.2019 passed in case No.2/10604/2017-18/CIT(A)-2 in proceedings under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

The assessee has pleaded the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal : “2. The Hon’ble CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without allowing proper opportunity to the appellant.

3. The Hon’ble CIT(A) ought to have allowed a reasonable opportunity to make submission with reconciliation of the turnover declared. 4. The Hon’ble CIT(A) ought to have noted that the assessee could have reconciled the turnover declared with the turnover mentioned in 26AS with the support of audited accounted books. 5. The Hon’ble CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the absence of any supporting material for making addition and in the light of the fact that the return of income was filed on the basis of audited account books. 6. Any other ground will be raised at the time of hearing.”

Both the learned representatives are in unison during the course of hearing that the instant sale issue of difference in assessee's P & L account and Form 28AS to the tune of Rs.2,69,09,900 more involves reconciliation than any substantive adjudication at our behest. We therefore restore the same back to the Assessing Officer for his necessary afresh factual verification as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing.

We lastly acknowledge that although the instant appeals are being decided after a period of 90 days from the date of hearing as per Rule 34(5) of the IT(AT) Rules 1963, the same however, does not apply in the covid lockdown situation as per hon'ble apex court's recent directions dated 27-04-2021 in M.A.No.665/2021 in SM(W)C No.3/2020 'In Re Cognizance for extension of limitation' making it clear that in such cases where the limitation period (including that prescribed for institution as well as termination) shall stand excluded from 14th of March, 2021 till further orders.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 25th August, 2021.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →