GHARONDA BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 917/HYD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 August 2021AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Regarding the addition of customer advances, the Tribunal found that the plea of double addition was raised for the first time and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2013-14 was filed with a delay of 11 days due to the Managing Partner's ill health. The assessee did not press the grievance regarding a Section 43B disallowance. The main issue concerned the addition of customer advances to the income.

What were the issues?

Whether customer advances recorded as current liabilities and assessed in subsequent years constitute double addition. Whether a plea raised for the first time in second appeal requires factual verification.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 43B,Section 143(3)

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, C.A. For Revenue: Smt. N. Esther, D.R. 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. 2013-14 arises against the CIT(A) -1, Hyderabad’s order dated 15.12.2017 passed in case no. 0111/2017-18 , involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ in short ‘the Act’].

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

M/s Gharonda Builders & Developers, Hyd.

2.

At the outset it is seen that the appeal is filed with a delay of 11 days for which assessee has filed affidavit stating due to his ill health and hospitalisation of the Managing Partner, the delay occurred and prayed for condonation of the delay. Being satisfied that this delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor wilful, we condone the same and proceed with the appeal.

3.

Mr.Rama Rao is very fair at the outset in not pressing for the assessee’s first and foremost substantive grievance challenging sec.43(b) disallowance of Rs.3,38,855/-, keeping in mind smallness of the amount involved. Rejected accordingly.

4.

Next comes the latter issue of correctness of both lower authorities action adding assessee’s advances from customers to the tune of Rs.1,29,75,485/-. 4.1. Learned counsel’s only case is that the very sum had been recorded as “current liabilities” which stands duly assessed in subsequent AYs.

4.2. Learned DR’s argument on the other hand is that the assessee’s foregoing double addition plea has been raised for the first time in second appellate proceedings only which requires factual verification. He has further supported both the lower authorities’ action making the impugned addition.

5.

We have considered rival pleadings against and in support of impugned advances from customers of Rs.1,29,75,485/-. Faced with the issue of double addition raised for the first time before us, we deem it proper to restore the instant issue back to the Assessing officer for a fresh verification. The assessee or its authorised representative is directed to appear before the AO on or before 30th November, 2021 with all the relevant details to this effect; at M/s Gharonda Builders & Developers, Hyd. its own risk and responsibility to be followed by three effective opportunities of hearing. 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 43B

All 7,161 judgments and leading authorities on Section 43B →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →