MADURAI-TUTICORIN EXPRESSWAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 847/HYD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 October 2026AY 2017-185 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present its case before the Ld. CIT(A). The delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was condoned, subject to the assessee depositing a cost of Rs. 5,000/- with the Prime Minister Relief Fund. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the issue along with the assessee's appeal against the assessment order dated 30/12/2019, by way of a consolidated order. The assessee was granted liberty to raise all legal and factual grounds before the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the disallowance of depreciation but focused on procedural aspects to allow the appeal to be heard on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Madurai-Tuticorin Expressways Limited, filed an appeal before the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench, against the order of the CIT(A), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal as barred by limitation. The assessee contended that it was a sick company and the intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, did not come to its notice. The delay was further attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic. The assessee also argued that the disallowance of depreciation by CPC, Bengaluru under section 143(1) was on a debatable issue, which should not have been done summarily. The assessee further pointed out that the Assessing Officer (AO) had initiated scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) by issuing a notice under section 143(2) but still processed the return under section 143(1), which was incorrect. The assessee had another appeal pending before the CIT(A) against the assessment order dated 30/12/2019.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was barred by limitation, and if so, whether the delay should be condoned, considering the assessee's status as a sick company, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020. 2. Whether the disallowance of depreciation by the CPC, Bengaluru under section 143(1) was valid, given that it was a debatable issue and the AO had subsequently proceeded with a scrutiny assessment under section 143(3). Assessee's Arguments: - The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to the company being sick and the COVID-19 pandemic, and the period from 15/03/2020 to 28/02/2022 should be excluded as per the Supreme Court's order. - The disallowance of depreciation under section 143(1) was on a debatable issue and should not have been made summarily. - Once a notice under section 143(2) was issued for scrutiny assessment, the AO should not have processed the return under section 143(1). - The assessee has a strong case on merits and requested that the matter be restored to the CIT(A) to be decided along with another pending appeal. Revenue's Arguments: - The Ld. DR relied upon the findings of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 143(3),Section 32,Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, HON’BLE

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been appeal preferred by the assessee company against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 04/07/2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee company has invited our attention to the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) to submit that the Ld. CIT(A)

ITA 847/HYD/2024 MADURAI-TUTICORIN

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 32

All 2,762 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →