SEW BELLARY HIGHWAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 653/HYD/2022Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 April 2023AY 2018-194 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the substantial additions were deleted by the Assessing Officer himself in the rectification order, the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) became infructuous. Therefore, the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn by the CIT(A) was upheld.

What were the facts?

The assessee initially claimed deduction u/s 80IA and declared nil income. The CPC disallowed depreciation and added delayed PF deposit. Subsequently, the AO passed a rectification order allowing depreciation and the delayed PF deposit, effectively reducing the addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as withdrawn without disposing of the grounds on merits when the issue was settled by the AO through a rectification order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IA,Section 143(1),Section 143(3),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy, CIT(DR)
Hearing: 20/04/2023Pronounced: 25/04/2023

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sew Bellary Highways Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 3(1) PAN:AAOCS6549K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: N o n e Revenue by: Shri KPRR Murthy, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 20/04/2023 Date of pronouncement: 25/04/2023 ORDER Per R.K. Panda, A.M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.07.20.2022 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2018-19.

2.

An adjournment application has been filed by the assessee seeking adjournment of the case. However, a perusal of the order of the learned CIT (A) NFAC shows that the assessee had withdrawn the appeal before the CIT (A) NFAC for which the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeal on the basis of the material available on record and after hearing the learned DR.

ITA 653 of 2022 Sew Bellary Highways Ltd Hyderabad

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee company filed its return of income on 17.10.2018 declaring ‘nil’ income after claiming deduction u/s 80IA of Rs.40,04,290/-. The return was processed by the CPC Bengaluru and intimation u/s 143(1) was passed on 21.12.2019 by determining the total income at Rs.11,34,47,280/- after disallowing depreciation allowance of Rs.11,33,82,477/- and making addition of Rs.64,800/- towards delayed deposit of PF. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and order u/s 143(3) was passed on 5.3.2021 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.11,75,25,520/- by making an addition of Rs.40,78,240/-.

4.

The assessee filed a rectification application stating the assessee is eligible for depreciation allowance of Rs.11,33,82,477/- which was duly allowed in the previous A.Y. It was further submitted that the addition towards the delay in deposit of PF of Rs.64,800/- was made twice i.e., in the orders u/s 143(1) and 143(3).

5.

The Assessing Officer accordingly passed rectification order u/s 154 r.w.s. 143(3) determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.40,78,243/- by granting depreciation of Rs.11,33,82,477/- and delayed deposit of PF of Rs.64,800/-.

6.

The assessee had filed an appeal before the CIT (A) NFAC against the addition made earlier as per order u/s 143(3).. Subsequently, the assessee before the CIT (A) NFAC filed an application seeking withdrawal of the appeal based on which the learned CIT (A) NFAC allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal and accordingly dismissed the same by observing as under: Page 2 of 4

ITA 653 of 2022 Sew Bellary Highways Ltd Hyderabad “2. The case was posted for hearing. The assessee SEW BELLARY HIGHWAYS LIMITED vide it's letter dated 23.09.2021 received through ITBA and kept on record, has requested for permission for withdrawal of the appeal. The relevant portion of the letter is reproduced below: "The appellant company is a Special Purpose Vehicle (SP) incorporated for execution of the project work with M/s. Karnataka Road Development Corporation Ltd (KRDCL). For the Assessment Year 2018- 19, its assessment has been completed u/s 143(3) on vide NO: 05.03.2021 DIN ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2020 21/1031273710(1) by the National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi (enclosed Assessment order as Annexure 1). By aggrieving the Assessment Order, we have filed an appeal on 25.03.2021 and later on received the rectification order dated 01.07.2021 and the issue was settled. Therefore, the appeal filed may kindly be treated as infructuous and the appellant may be permitted to withdraw its appeal."

3.

In view of the above, the assessee is permitted to withdraw the appeal.

4. The appeal is treated as dismissed for statistical purposes”.

7.

Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: “

1. The order dt. 15.07.2022 of the learned NFAC CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law.

2. The learned NFAC CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the appeal as withdraw without disposing the grounds of appeal on merits, simply on the basis of withdrawal petition filed by the appellant”.

8.

We have heard the learned DR and perused the available material on record. Since the substantial addition was deleted by the Assessing Officer himself in the rectification order, the assessee filed an application before the CIT (A) NFAC seeking permission to withdraw the appeal which the learned CIT (A) NFAC had allowed. Therefore, nothing survives and the grounds raised by the assessee being devoid of merit are dismissed.

ITA 653 of 2022 Sew Bellary Highways Ltd Hyderabad

9.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 80IA

All 1,796 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →