What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) only has the power to obtain a remand report and not to remit the entire matter back to the AO. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for de-novo consideration.

The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) against the AO's order. The CIT(A) remitted the appeal back to the AO for verification of a revised return, which the assessee argued was beyond the CIT(A)'s powers.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) has the power to remit an appeal back to the AO, or only to obtain a remand report.

Madhucon Infra Limited vs DCIT | ITAT Hyderabad 2021

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao

For Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR

Hearing: 24/02/2021Pronounced: 03/03/2021

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Hyderabad in appeal No.0396/16-17/DCIT, Cir-16(2)/CIT(A)- 4/Hyd/18-19, dated 09/07/2018 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2014-15.

The assessee has raised seven grounds in its appeal and they are extracted herein below for reference:-

“1. The appellate order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law it is prejudicial to the interest of the assessee. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding partly the order of A.O. and not adjudicating all the grounds raised by the appellant.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the A.O. erred in disallowing the depreciation for an amount of Rs. 1,19,663/- without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee has purchased the machine which was used wholly and exclusively for the business purpose and that the appellant is entitled for depreciation on the said asset in terms of section 32 of IT Act.

5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have properly appreciated that the assessee has submitted all the relevant documents relating to the purchase of equipment.

6. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee has filed return of income admitting loss at Rs. 50,51,37,949/- which has to be considered instead of loss of Rs. 36,18,09,013/-.

7. The appellant may add or alter or amend, modify or substitute or delete and or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal at any time of before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before us that the ld. CIT (A) has remitted the appeal of the assessee back to Ld. CIT (A) to verify whether the assessee company had filed revised return on 11/4/2015 and thereafter decide the matter on merits. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) does not have the power to remit back the appeal to the Ld. AO by virtue of section 250(4) of the Act as he has only power to obtain a remand report from the ld. AO and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with merit and law. In response the Ld. DR did not express any objection for remitting back the entire matter to the file of the Ld. AO for de-novo consideration.

After hearing both the parties, We find merit in the submission of the Ld. AR. By virtue of section 250(4) of the Act, the CIT (A) has only powers to obtain remand report from the Ld. AO and thereafter pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merit. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT (A) does not have power for remission. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we hereby remit back the entire matter back to the file of Ld. AO for de-novo consideration.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Pronounced in the open Court on the 03rd of March 2021.

MADHUCON INFRA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments