DHANITHA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 995/HYD/2013Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 August 2021AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had previously restored similar interconnected appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the instant appeal was also restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arose from an order confirming the addition of Rs. 2,44,55,000/- received from Sri Sunil Kumar Ahuja as business income. This was in relation to a search action conducted at the managing director's premises, which allegedly revealed undisclosed income from real estate development.

What were the issues?

Whether the amount received from Sri Sunil Kumar Ahuja was correctly treated as business income. Whether the addition of Rs. 2,05,50,000/- was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES : BENCH “A” HYDERABAD

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

Hearing: 01/06/2021Pronounced: 17/08/2021

For Assessee: Shri S. Rama Rao, Adv. For Revenue: Smt. N. Esther, DR Date of Hearing : 01/06/2021 Date of Pronouncement : 17/08/2021 O R D E R PER S.S. GODARA, J.M.

This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 arises against the CIT(A)-1, Hyderabad’s order dated 31.03.2013 passed in case no. 0291/CC-1/Hyd/CIT(A)-I/Hyd/10-11 , involving proceedings u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ in short ‘the Act’].

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

M/s Dhanitha Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Hyd.

The assessee has raised the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal. “2. The order of the ld.CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law 3. The ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in treating an amount of Rs.2,44,55,000/- received from Sri Sunil Kumar Ahuja as income from business. The ld.CIT(A) ought to have seen that the said amount does not represent the income from business and should not have been treated as part of income.

4. The ld.CIT(A) erred in making addition of Rs. 2,05,50,000/- without considering the fact that the appellant did neither receive the said amount nor such amount represents the income from business.”

3.

It emerges at the outset that the instant lis has arisen on account of the department’s search action dated 17.09.2008 conducted at the residential premises of assessee’s managing director Sri “OSS Prasad” ie Sri Siva Sankar Prasad Obisetty” giving rise to alleged seizure of incrimination material pinpointing the undisclosed income of Rs. 4,50,000/- pertaining to real estate development transactions.

4.

We next find that this tribunal’s coordinate bench order dated 26.9.2017 had clubbed the instant appeal with Shri “OSS Prasad’s cases ITA 951 to 955/Hyd/2015 raising identical/interconnected issues.

4.1. Learned counsel has filed this tribunal coordinate bench’s order dated 06.10.2020 before us that all the said appeals stand restored back to the file of CIT(A) for his afresh adjudication. Faced with this situation, we observe that instant lis must also follow suit being an interconnected case. It is made clear that the assessee or its AR shall appear before the CIT(A) on or before 30th Novemer, 2021 with all the relevant details; at its own risk and M/s Dhanitha Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. responsibility to be followed by three effective opportunities of hearing in light of the final outcome in Shri Prasad’s appeals (supra). Ordered accordingly.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Pronounced in Open Court on 17th August, 2021.

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →