INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. RATNAPRIYA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2275/HYD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 June 2021AY 2015-163 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Revenue had no locus standi to file the appeal as the CIT(A) had followed the Assessing Officer's own remand report. Therefore, the Revenue was not an agitated party.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition of un-explained share capital. The CIT(A) had relied on the Assessing Officer's remand report, which found nothing adverse regarding the assessee's share capital.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue has locus standi to file an appeal when the lower appellate authority has deleted an addition based on the Assessing Officer's own remand report.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 254(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. :

This Revenue’s appeal for AY.2015-16 arises from the CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad’s order dated 20-09-2018 passed in appeal No.0096 / ITO-3(2) / Hyd / CIT(A)-3 / 2017-18 in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both parties. Case file perused.

2.

Coming to the Revenue’s sole substantive ground that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting Section 68 addition of un-explained share capital amounting to Rs.36,27,52,980/- made in the course of assessment dt.30-12-2017.

3.

We notice at the outset that the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion has precisely gone by the Assessing Officer’s remand report itself stating it very clearly that he had not found anything adverse in assessee’s share capital as it is evident from pgs.23 and 24 paras VIII to XI. Faced with this situation, we hold that the Revenue cannot be held to be an agitated party having any locus standi to evoke second appellate jurisdiction u/s.254(1) of the Act in view of B.Jayalaxmi Vs. ACIT (2018) [96 taxmann.com 486] and CIT Vs. D.M.Purnesh (2020) [426 ITR 169] (Karnataka). We thus decline the Revenue’s instant grievance on this sole reason alone.

4.

This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11th June, 2021

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →