ANDHRA PRADESH HOUSING BOARD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 733/VIZ/2025Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 June 2026AY 2018-196 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, noting that it was crucial and not available to the lower authorities. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify the income offered by the Telangana Housing Board and pass a fresh order.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, appealed against an addition of income to its hands, arguing that the income belonged to the Telangana Housing Board after the state's bifurcation. The assessee submitted additional evidence during the appeal process to support this claim.

What were the issues?

Whether the income, for which TDS was deducted in the appellant's PAN, actually belonged to the Telangana Housing Board and if additional evidence submitted at the appellate stage should be admitted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(2),Section 133(6),Section 194I,Section 194C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH,

Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, HON’BLE

For Respondent: Shri Shahnawaz Ul Rahman, CIT(DR)

आदेश / ORDER PER OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, AM: In the above cited appeal, the appellant which is a State Government undertaking raised the following three grounds in its appeal: -

“1. The order u/s 250 of the Act by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not correct either on facts or in law, and is therefore liable to be set aside. 2. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) failed to note that the notice u/s 148 dated 30- 03-2022 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer which is in direct

ITA 733/VIZ/2025 ANDHRA PRADESH HOUSING BOARD contravention to the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 thereby rendering the subsequent assessment proceedings along with order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B dated 22- 02-2023 to be invalid. 3. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the notice issued u/s 143(2) dated 02-11-2022 by the Ld. Assessing Officer is invalid, being in direct contravention of CBDT Notification F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA.II dated 23-06-2017, and all subsequent proceedings initiated pursuant to such invalid notice are null and void in law, as consistently held by various judicial authorities. 4. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in treating the income of Rs. 10,57,22, 106/-in the hands of the appellant merely because tax was deducted in the appellant's PAN, completely disregarding the fact that Telangana Housing Board (THB) is owning the income. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing

2.

Out of the above grounds, Ground Nos. 2 and 3 relating to challenging the reopening notice along with order under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter in short “the Act”] is invalid and consequently the proceedings including passing of an order are null and void in the eyes of law. Hence it was pleaded that the Assessment Order may be held has void-abinitio and consequent additions may be deleted. The appellant raised a 4th ground of appeal which states that the tax was deducted in the appellant PAN whereas the Telangana Housing Board is owning and enjoying the income.

3.

The appellant has raised an additional ground stating that not only the proceedings under section 147 of the Act are invalid but also the manner of issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Act is also not in accordance with the provisions of law.

4.

During the proceedings before the Bench, the Learned Authorized Representative (for short “Ld.AR”) did not press the grounds of appeal relating to issuance of notice under section 147 and 143(2) of the Act in the open court. It was

ITA 733/VIZ/2025 ANDHRA PRADESH HOUSING BOARD admitted that he is withdrawing these grounds and confined his argument to the main issue that they are not getting the income which is corresponding to the TDS made in their PAN. It is an admitted fact that PAN is in their name, the incomes relating to the PAN are owned and admitted by the Telangana Housing Board after the partition of Andhra Pradesh State into Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. The Ld.AR has also argued that Telangana Housing Board is admitting all these incomes in their return of income which can be verified. But since there was no evidence furnished by the assessee before the Ld.AO and Ld. CIT(A), the Income Tax Department did not agree with the arguments of assessee and held that the income had to be admitted in appellant’s hands only because the corresponding incomes are shown against the assessee’s PAN only. This issue went up to the ITAT in the earlier years where it was held that since the PAN belongs to assessee and incomes are linked to this PAN, assessee had to pay the taxes. The assessee was not able to bring any evidences to show that the income corresponding to the assessee’s PAN are being offered in the hands of Telangana Housing Board subsequent to the partition and hence the decision is against the assessee in the earlier years and current year by the lower authorities.

5.

During the proceedings before the Bench, the Ld.AR of the appellant filed a petition for admission of additional evidences. The appellant has stated that the addition of Rs.10.75 crores was made in their hands because the TDS under section 194Iand 194C of the Act were reflected in the Form 26AS of the appellant, but this rental income was not offered for taxation. Before the First Appellate Authority, the appellant claimed that on bifurcation of the Andhra Pradesh State, corresponding rental incomes were received by Telangana Housing Board though the deductor use that TAN of the Appellant “Andhra Pradesh Housing Board”. The appellant has also 3

ITA 733/VIZ/2025 ANDHRA PRADESH HOUSING BOARD filed a confirmation letter now before the Bench for the first time and it was argued that the appeal of the appellant was dismissed on the ground that the said confirmation letter was not clear on the subject. The Ld.AR of the appellant further stated that during the pendency of appeal before the First Appellate Authority, the Telangana Housing Board, in response to notice under section 133(6) of the Act dated 03.01.2024 and 31.03.2025 filed replies stating that the said rental income was received by them and that rental income was reflected in the Return of Income filed by them for the A.Y. 2018-19. Along with the reply, the concerned authorities of Telangana Housing Board also filed necessary evidence in support of the said claim. This information was not available with the appellant and hence the same was not filed before the Ld.AO / First Appellate Authority. In view of the request made by the appellant, the Telangana Housing Board filed their letter dated 20.04.2026 confirmed the fact that the sum of Rs.10.57 crores was duly accounted for and disclosed in the income tax return for the A.Y. 2018-19. Since these additional evidences go to the root of the issue, the Ld.AR of the appellant prayed that the Hon’ble Tribunal may please admit these additional evidences under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules, 1963 in the interest of justice. Along with this petition, the Ld.AR of the appellant filed a paper book containing the notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act by DCIT-1(1), Vijayawada to Telangana Housing Board dated 03.01.2024, copy of the reply filed by the Telangana Housing Board along with the copy of certified Rent Ledgers of Parties, copy of ITR, P&L schedule admitting rental incomes in Return of Income, copy of letter dated 20.04.2026 issued by then Chief Accounts Officer of Telangana Housing Board to Chief Accounts Officer of Andhra Pradesh Housing Board. From these papers filed for the first time before the Bench, it appears Telangana Housing Board is

ITA 733/VIZ/2025 ANDHRA PRADESH HOUSING BOARD accounting the rental receipts whereas PAN and TAN still are in the name of Andhra Pradesh Housing Board as mentioned above. Since these papers were filed for the first time before the Bench which goes to the root of the matter the petition for additional evidences are being admitted and perused. Admittedly, these crucial evidences are filed before the Bench for the first time and the lower authorities did not have the advantage of perusing the same and take a correct decision.

6.

Ld. Departmental Representative (hereinafter in short “Ld. DR”) relied on the orders of lower authorities.

7.

After hearing both sides and perusing the material available on record including additional evidences, the Bench decides to send the matter back to the file of Ld.AO to verify whether the rental incomes were offered by the Telangana Housing Board and take an appropriate decision. It is a settled law that no income can be taxed twice. If the rental incomes are offered in the hands of Telangana Housing Board, the appellant gets relief here. Thus, the issue is remitted back to the file of Ld.AO with a direction to admit these additional evidences and pass appropriate order afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 03.06.2026 Sd/- Sd/- RAVISH SOOD OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Visakhapatnam Dated: 03.06.2026 Giridhar, Sr.PS Sr.PS 5

ITA 733/VIZ/2025 ANDHRA PRADESH HOUSING BOARD Copy to: ANDHRA PRADESH HOUSING BOARD, C/O KATRAPATI & ASSOCIATES, 1- 1-298/2/B/3, SOWBHAGYA AVENUE APTS, 1 1ST FLOOR, ASHOK NAGAR, STREET NO.1, HYDERABAD-500020, TELANGANA ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 2 CIRCLE-1(1), C R BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR ANNEX, M G ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA-520002, ANDHRA PRADESH 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →