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) Assessment Year:2009-10 EDCO (India) Private Vs. DCIT, Limited, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN: AAACE 4487 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao Revenue by: Ms. Kanika Agarwal, DR Date of hearing: 21/10/2020 Date of pronouncement: 21/10/2020 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT (A)-5, Hyderabad in appeal No. 0312/2016-17/CIT(A)-5 (CIT (A), Hyderabad-5/10349/2016-17), dated 08/06/2018 passed U/s. 143 (3) r.w.s 254 and U/s. 250(6) of the Act for the AY 2009-10.
The assessee has raised six grounds in its appeal which are extracted herein below for reference:-
(1) The order of the Ld. CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and law, to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. (2) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the ground of appeal of the assessee and upholding the estimation of income @ 8% on gross receipts made by AO in the assessment order.
(3) The Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding estimation of income made by the AO without considering the fact that AO can’t proceed to make arbitrary addition and such addition should be based on comparable cases and the results of impugned case in earlier years. (4) The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have accepted the fact that the books of accounts are duly audited U/s. 44AB of the Income Tax Act, by qualified Chartered Accountant and that no infirmities in maintenance of accounts were noticed. (5) The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not properly appreciating the fact that the assessee is engaged in the business of sub-contracts and that therefore the estimation of income should be 5% as prescribed in many ITAT orders. (6) The appellant may add or alter or amend or modify or substitute or delete and / or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
3. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before us that the Ld. CIT (A) has passed ex-parte order without providing proper opportunity to the assessee of being heard. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has maintained proper records and now in a position to produce the same before the Revenue. It was therefore pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. AO in order to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to justify its stand before the Ld. Revenue Authorities otherwise it will lead to miscarriage of justice. Ld. DR on the other hand vehemently opposed to the submission of the ld. AR however, conceded to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A).
After hearing both sides, We are of the view that one more opportunity should be provided to the assessee since the assessee’s Representative have vouched before us that the assessee has maintained proper books of accounts and all the necessary document to establish the genuineness of the income declared in the return of income. Therefore, in the interest of justice, We hereby remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO for de novo consideration. We also hereby direct the ld. AO to admit and examine any fresh evidence filed before him and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law and merit duly considering the same. We further caution the assessee to promptly cooperate before the ld. Revenue Authorities in order to expedite their proceedings failing which the Ld. Revenue Authorities shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders based on the materials placed before them. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above.
Pronounced in the open Court on 21st October, 2020.