R.R.ENTERTAINMENTS,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(5), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 80/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 February 2021AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed without providing adequate opportunity for hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns an addition of Rs. 75,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer on account of advance received for satellite rights. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity of hearing. Whether the addition of Rs. 75,00,000 for advance satellite rights was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143,Section 263,Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

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

O R D E R PER BENCH :

This assessee’s appeal for AY.2013-14 arises from the CIT(A)-6, Hyderabad’s order dated 19-09-2018 passed in appeal No.10025/2017-18/A2/CIT(A)-6, in proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

The assessee has raised the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal:

2.The Appellant denies himself liable to be assessed over and above the returned income of Rs.19,73,080/-, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-6, Hyderabad, ought not to have dismissed the appeal, without appreciating the facts of the case and without giving an opportunity to represent and to produce the documents, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4.The learned Authorities below are not justified in making an addition of Rs.75,00,000/-, the advance amount received for sale of satellite rights, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5.The learned Authorities below ought to have considered the fact that release of movie in theatre have no bearing on selling of satellite rights and the amount received Rs.75,00,000/-, is shown as advance, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 6.The Appellant denies himself liable to be assessed to interest undersection 234B of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case

3.

It transpires during the course of hearing that the CIT(A) order under challenge affirming the Assessing Officer’s action making the impugned sale of satellite rights addition to the tune of Rs.75 lakhs; has been passed ex-parte.

4.

Learned Departmental Representative vehemently contended during the course of hearing that since the assessee chose not to appear, the CIT(A)’s order is very well justified in the given facts and circumstances. He has also taken us to para 7.5 onwards dealing with the factual matrix of the issue. He fails to dispute that the CIT(A)’s order in para 4.1 makes it clear that he had posted the lower appeal for hearing on 18-09-2018 only which thus emerges as an instance of lack of adequate opportunity of hearing. We therefore deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s foregoing grievance(s) back to the CIT(A) for his afresh adjudication on merits. The assessee or its authorised representative shall appear before the CIT(A) on or before 30th June, 2021 and thereafter it shall be afforded with three effective opportunities at its own risk and responsibility.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 2nd February, 2021

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →