APEX SECURITIES,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(5), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 823/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 January 2020AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that it was appropriate for the CIT(A) to obtain the remand report before adjudicating the issue. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming an addition for F&O trading loss and the reopening of assessment. The CIT(A) had called for a remand report from the AO but failed to obtain it before passing the order.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without a speaking order and whether the reopening of assessment was valid without a proper remand report.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “A-SMC”, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

Hearing: 20/11/2019Pronounced: 22/01/2020

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A-SMC”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Apex Securities, Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad. Ward-11(5), PAN: AANFA 8201 G Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri Sashank Dundu Revenue by: Sri K. Ravi Kiran, DR Date of hearing: 20/11/2019 Date of pronouncement: 22/01/2020 ORDER

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Hyderabad in appeal No. 0454/16-17/ITO, Ward- 11(5)/CIT(A)-1/Hyd/18-19, dated 14/02/2019 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 and U/s. 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2009-10.

2.

The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeal however, the crux of the issues are:

(i) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 12,83,473/- made by the Ld. A.O. towards loss incurred in F & O Trading without passing speaking order.

(ii) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the reopening of assessment made by the Ld. A.O. which is bad in law, invalid and based on borrowed satisfaction.

3.

At the outset, the ld. AR submitted before us that the ld. CIT (A) had called for remand report from the Ld. AO on 10/05/2018. However, the Ld. AO failed to respond to the direction of the Ld. CIT (A). Thereafter, the Ld. CIT (A) without obtaining the remand report from the Ld. AO confirmed the order of the Ld. AO by simply accepting the view of the Ld. AO. It was therefore pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) in order to consider the issue afresh after obtaining the remand report from the ld. AO. Ld. DR on the other hand, vehemently opposed to the submission of the Ld. AR and relied on the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities.

4.

I have heard the rival submission and carefully perused the materials available on record. From the order of the Ld. CIT (A) it is evident that the Ld. CIT (A) had called for remand report from the Ld. AO, but thereafter without awaiting for the remand report from the Ld. AO, he had proceeded to adjudicate the issue. I am of the considered view that since the Ld. CIT (A) had called for the remand report from the ld. AO it would have been appropriate to dispose off the matter after obtaining the remand report from the ld. AO. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I hereby remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT (A) for de novo consideration and to appropriate order in accordance with law and merits after obtaining the remand report from the Ld. AO.

5.

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

Pronounced in the open Court on 23rd January, 2020.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →