Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD
Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Virtual Hearing) and 894/Hyd/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/s. Ratna Infrastructure Vs. DCIT, Projects Pvt Ltd., Central Circle-3, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN: AADCR 5836 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Mohd Afzal Revenue by: Ms. Kanika Agarwal, DR Date of hearing: 3/11/2020 Date of pronouncement: 6/11/2020 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.:
Both these appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of the Ld. CIT (A)-12, Hyderabad in appeal Nos. 0117 & 0118/2014-15, dated 26/02/2016 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act for the AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10.
The assessee has raised four grounds in both of its appeals for the AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 and they are extracted herein below for reference:-
“The order of the Ld. CIT (A) is against the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case.
2. The Ld. Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the AO erred in making addition of Rs. 29,50,000/- in order U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153A, in the absence of any seized material found and seized during the course of search, in the assessee’s premises and further erred by not declaring the assessment as null and void.
3. The Ld. Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the AO should not have disturbed the order U/s. 143(3) dated 16/12/2010, in the absence of any incriminating material found and seized from the assessee’s premises and further erred by not declaring the assessment as null and void.
4. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend or modify the above grounds of appeal
either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, if it is considered necessary.” Grounds of appeal for the AY 2009-10:
1. The order of the Ld. CIT (A) is against the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case.
2. The Ld. Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the AO erred in making addition of Rs. 1,24,65,000/- in order U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153A, in the absence of any seized material found and seized during the course of search, in the assessee’s premises and further erred by not declaring the assessment as null and void.
3. The Ld. Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the AO should not have disturbed the order U/s. 143(3) dated 30/12/2010, in the absence of any incriminating material found and seized from the assessee’s premises and further erred by not declaring the assessment as null and void.
4. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend or modify the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, if it is considered necessary.”
At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out before us to the e-petition dated 02/11/2020 wherein permission of the Bench was sought for withdrawing the assessee’s appeals. The relevant portion of the e-petition is extracted herein below for reference:
“In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that for the assessment years 2008-09 & 2009-10, the Appellate Commissioner deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Against the orders of the Ld. CIT, Department filed appeals before the Hon’ble ITAT, which are numbered as 600 & 601/Hyd/2016. As the tax effect was below Rs. 50 lakhs in both the cases, the Hon’ble Bench on 23/8/2020 dismissed the appeals, considering the CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, Dt 11/07/2018 and Circular 17 of 2019 dated 09/08/2019. Against the orders of the Appellate Commissioner the assessee also filed an appeal on 09/05/2018 for the AY 2008-09 & 2009-10, raising certain legal grounds. However, as the Departmental appeals are dismissed for both the years and the under signed is directed by the assessee not to press the grounds of appeal before the Hon’ble Bench. Therefore the Hon’ble Bench is requested to kindly adjudicate issue, in view of this submissions.”
The ld. AR further submitted before us that since the assessee has got relief from the order of the Ld. CIT (A), desires to withdraw both the above mentioned appeals and hence the appeals may be treated as withdrawn. Ld. DR conceded to the request of the Ld. AR.
After hearing both the parties, We hereby permit the assessee to withdraw its appeals and accordingly both the appeals are disposed off.
It is pertinent to mention that though there is a delay of 718 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal, since the assessee is not interested to pursue its appeals, we do not find it necessary to address the issue of condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn.
Pronounced in the open Court on Sixth November, 2020.