MOHAMME HUSSAIN BIKES, MDH BIKES,KADAPA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KADAPA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2292/HYD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 October 2019AY 2011-123 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the issues were already decided in prior appeals. Consequently, the consequential orders passed by the AO and the subsequent appellate orders of the CIT(A) did not survive.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against consequential orders passed by the AO after PCIT's orders under Section 263. The issues in these appeals were identical to those previously adjudicated by the Tribunal for the same assessment years.

What were the issues?

Whether the consequential orders passed by the AO and CIT(A) are valid when the original PCIT orders under Section 263 have already been adjudicated by the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD

Hearing: 11/09/2019Pronounced: 11/10/2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2292/Hyd/2018 & ITA No. 2306/Hyd/2018 AYs: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Mohamme Husain Bikes, Vs. Income Tax Officer, MDH Bikes, Proddatur, Ward-2, Proddatur. Kadapa Dist. PAN: AANFM 1182 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue by: Sri Nilanjan Dey, DR Date of hearing: 11/09/2019 Date of pronouncement: 11/10/2019 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.:

These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Kurnool in appeal No.088 & 089/CIT(A)/KNL/2016-17, dated 07/09/2018 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 263 & U/s. 250(6) of the Act for the assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13.

2.

These appeals pertain to consequential orders passed by the Ld. AO pursuant to the orders passed by the Ld. PCIT U/s. 263 of the Act

which was further adjudicated by the Ld. CIT (A) with respect to the appeals filed by the assessee.

3.

At the outset the Ld. AR submitted before us that the assessee also preferred appeals with respect to the orders passed by the Ld. PCIT U/s. 263 of the Act for the assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 before the Tribunal which were adjudicated by the Tribunal vide order dated 28/02/2018 in ITA Nos. 847 and 848/Hyd/2016 and the issues raised in those appeals are the same as the issues raised in the present appeals filed before us. The Ld.DR could not controvert to the submission of the Ld.AR. Further on examining the facts we find merit in the submission of the Ld.AR and for reference we have extracted the relevant portion of the Order of the Tribunal dated 28/02/2018 hereinbelow: -

“7. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. There is no dispute that the assessee has earned the other income, which are part of running of business ie., purchase and sale of bikes, for which, assessee has to incur the expenditure similar to the main business activity. According to us, these expenses cannot be separated, as the activities are inseparable. But, these other incomes have potential to generate some income, which may not be at the rate estimated by the Ld. Pr. CIT. Therefore, we direct the AO to estimate the other income @ 10% of the gross receipt apart from estimating the business income at 1.1% on the sales in order to meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed. 8. As the facts and ground raised by the assessee in AY 2012-13 are identical to the AY 2011-12, following the conclusions drawn therein, the grounds raised in AY 2012-13 are partly allowed.”

4.

Since, the issues raised in the present appeals before us are already adjudicated by the Tribunal vide Order dated 28/02/2018 in ITA Nos. 847 and 848/Hyd/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13, the Consequential Orders passed by the Ld.AO pursuant to the Orders passed by the Ld.PCIT U/s.263 of the Act for the very same assessment years and the subsequent appellate Orders of the Ld.CIT(A) do not survive.

5.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.

Pronounced in the open Court on the 11th October, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 11th October, 2019 OKK Copy to:- 1) MDH Bikes, D. No.15/430-2, Mydukur Road, Near Pandu Ranga Swamy Temple, Proddatur (Kadapa Dist). 2) ITO, Ward-2, Vasanthapet, Rameswaram Road, Proddatur, Kadapa Dist. 3) The CIT(A), Kurnool. 4) The Pr. CIT, Kurnool. 5) The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 6) Guard File

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →