Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad (Through Video Conferencing) Before Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member AND Shri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member
Sl. No. ITA No. Asst.Year Appellant Respondent 1 651/Hyd/2020 2012-13 Dakshin DCIT, Infrastructures Central Circle Private Limited, 2(3), Hyderabad Hyderabad. PAN : AACCD4138P 2 652/Hyd/2020 2013-14 Kapil Property -do- Developers Limited, Hanumakonda. PAN :AACCV1119N. 3 & 4 653 & 654/ 2012-13 & Kapil Foods and -do- Hyd/2020 2013-14 Structures Private Limited, Warangal. PAN : AACCK2614F 5 to 7 655 to 657/ 2012-13, Nalgonda Realtors -do- Hyd/2020 2013-14 & Private Limited, 2017-18 Secunderabad. PAN : AACCN6261H. 8 & 9 658 & 659/ 2012-13 & Ujwala Publications -do- Hyd/2020 2013-14 and Developers Pvt. Ltd., Warangal. PAN : AAACU6544J. 10 & 11 666 & 667/ 2012-13 & M/s. Indur Avenues -do- Hyd/2020 2013-14 and Foods Private Limited, Nizamabad. PAN : AABCI0260Q.
ITA Nos.651 to 659, 666 to 676 and 678 to 691/Hyd/2020
12 to 14 668, 669 and 2012-13, M/s.Kausalya DCIT, 691/Hyd/2020 2013-14 & Management Services Central Circle 2017-18 and Structures Private 2(3), Hyderabad Limited, Karimnagar. PAN : AAECK9304L. 15 to 17 670 to 672/ 2012-13, Indur Developers and -do- Hyd/2020 2013-14 & Agencies Private 2016-17 Limited, Vijayawada. PAN : AABCI4254Q. 18 to 21 673 to 676/ 2012-13, Kausalya Agro Farms -do- Hyd/2020 2013-14, & Developers Private 2014-15 & Limited, Hyderabad. 2017-18 PAN : AAGCS7258L 22 to 24 678 to 680/ 2013-14, Kausalya Shelters -do- Hyd/2020 2014-15 & Private Limited, 2017-18 Karimnagar. PAN : AAJCS3243D. 25 to 29 681 to 685/ 2012-13, M/s. Kausalya -do- Hyd/2020 2013-14, Avenues Private 2016-17, Limited, 2017-18 & Karimnagar. 2018-19 PAN : AAHCS7469R. 30 & 31 686 & 687/ 2012-13 & Kapil Infra Avenues -do- Hyd/2020 2013-14 Private Limited, Vijayawada. PAN : AADCK4944P 32 to 34 688 to 690/ 2012-13, Preethi Foods and -do- Hyd/2020 2013-14 & Villas Private Limited, 2017-18 Khammam. PAN : AADCP6978J.
Appellant By : Shri S. Ramarao. Respondent By : Shri T. Sunil Goutam & Sr. A.R. Swapnil. Date of Hearing : 16.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement:21.03.2022.
ITA Nos.651 to 659, 666 to 676 and 678 to 691/Hyd/2020
O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. The instant batch of thirty four appeals pertains to thirteen assessees. All relevant particulars thereof are stated as under :
Sl.No. & ITA No. Asst. Order Order under Proceed- Appellant Year under challenge and ings challenge case No. under section 1. Dakshin CIT(A)-12, 10301/2019-20 143(3) Infrastructures Hyderabad dt.18.09.2020 r.w.s 651/Hyd/2020 2012-13 Private Limited, 153A Hyderabad. 2. Kapil Property 10243/2019-20 143(3) Developers dt.18.09.2020 r.w.s 652/Hyd/2020 2013-14 -do- Limited, 147 Hanumakonda. 3. Kapil Foods -do- 10239/2019-20 653/Hyd/2020 2012-13 and Structures dt.18.09.2020 Private Limited, -do- -do- 10255/2019-20 Warangal. 654/Hyd/2020 2013-14 dt.18.09.2020 4. Nalgonda -do- 10241/2019-20 655/Hyd/2020 2012-13 Realtors dt.18.09.2020 Private Limited, -do- 10253/2019-20 656/Hyd/2020 2013-14 -do- Secunderabad. dt.18.09.2020 -do- 10355/2019-20 657/Hyd/2020 2017-18 dt.18.09.2020 5. Ujwala -do- 10244/2019-20 658/Hyd/2020 2012-13 Publications and dt.18.09.2020 Developers Pvt. -do- -do- 10341/2019-20 Ltd., 659/Hyd/2020 2013-14 dt.18.09.2020 Warangal. 6. M/s. Indur -do- 10240/2019-20 666/Hyd/2020 2012-13 Avenues and dt.18.09.2020 Foods Private -do- -do- 10248/2019-20 Limited, dt.18.09.2020 667/Hyd/2020 2013-14 Nizamabad. 7. M/s.Kausalya -do- 10245/2019-20 668/Hyd/2020 2012-13 Management dt.18.09.2020 -do- Services and -do- 10254/2019-20 669/Hyd/2020 2013-14 Structures Private dt.18.09.2020
ITA Nos.651 to 659, 666 to 676 and 678 to 691/Hyd/2020
Limited, 2017-18 10308/2019-20 143(3) 691/Hyd/2020 Karimnagar. dt.18.09.2020 8. Indur 10246/2019-20 143(3) Developers and 670/Hyd/2020 2012-13 dt.17.09.2020 r.w.s. 147 Agencies Private Limited, -do- -do- 10251/2019-20 671/Hyd/2020 2013-14 Vijayawada. dt.18.09.2020 10302/2019-20 143(3) 672/Hyd/2020 2016-17 dt.18.09.2020 9. Kausalya Agro 10218/2019-20 143(3) Farms & 673/Hyd/2020 2012-13 dt.18.09.2020 r.w.s Developers Private 147 Limited, -do- 10226/2019-20 674/Hyd/2020 2013-14 Hyderabad. -do- dt.18.09.2020 -do- 10229/2019-20 675/Hyd/2020 2014-15 dt.18.09.2020 10306/2019-20 143(3) 676/Hyd/2020 2017-18 dt.18.09.2020 10. Kausalya 10252/2019-20 143(3) Shelters Private 678/Hyd/2020 2013-14 dt.18.09.2020 r.w.s. 147 Limited, Karimnagar. -do- 10260/2019-20 -do- 679/Hyd/2020 2014-15 dt.18.09.2020 10309/2019-20 143(3) 680/Hyd/2020 2017-18 dt.18.09.2020 11. M/s. Kausalya 10225/2019-20 143(3) Avenues Private 681/Hyd/2020 2012-13 dt.18.09.2020 r.w.s. Limited, 153A Karimnagar. -do- 10227/2019-20 682/Hyd/2020 2013-14 dt.18.09.2020 -do- -do- 10265/2019-20 683/Hyd/2020 2016-17 dt.18.09.2020 -do- 10268/2019-20 684/Hyd/2020 2017-18 dt.18.09.2020 10273/2019-20 143(3) 685/Hyd/2020 2018-19 dt.18.09.2020 12. Kapil Infra 10224/2019-20 143(3) Avenues 686/Hyd/2020 2012-13 dt.18.09.2020 r.w.s. 147 Private Limited, -do- Vijayawada. 687/Hyd/2020 2013-14 -do- 10247/2019-20 dt.18.09.2020 13. Preethi Foods 688/Hyd/2020 2012-13 -do- 10217/2019-20 and Villas Private dt.18.09.2020 Limited, 689/Hyd/2020 2013-14 -do- 10201/2019-20 -do- Khammam. dt.18.09.2020 690/Hyd/2020 2017-18 10352/2019-20 143(3) dt.18.09.2020
ITA Nos.651 to 659, 666 to 676 and 678 to 691/Hyd/2020
We first of all come to the first and foremost assessee Dakshin Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd’s appeal ITA 651/Hyd/2020 for A.Y. 2012-13. Its sole substantive ground raised herein seeks to reverse both the lower authorities’ action disallowing section 36(1)(iii) interest expenditure alleging diversion of interest bearing funds for non business purposes to the tune of Rs.19,95,429/- as affirmed in the CIT(A)’s order as follows :
ITA Nos.651 to 659, 666 to 676 and 678 to 691/Hyd/2020
ITA Nos.651 to 659, 666 to 676 and 678 to 691/Hyd/2020
ITA Nos.651 to 659, 666 to 676 and 678 to 691/Hyd/2020
….xxxx
- Space left blank intentionally –
- Space left blank intentionally -
ITA Nos.651 to 659, 666 to 676 and 678 to 691/Hyd/2020
ITA Nos.651 to 659, 666 to 676 and 678 to 691/Hyd/2020
ITA Nos.651 to 659, 666 to 676 and 678 to 691/Hyd/2020
We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival submissions and find no reason to accept either parties’ stand in entirety. This is for the clinching reason that both the learned lower authorities appear to have placed reliance on alleged concession made by the group concern M/s. Indur Developers and
ITA Nos.651 to 659, 666 to 676 and 678 to 691/Hyd/2020
Agencies Pvt. Ltd wherein there is no clarity as to whether the same specifically covered all other group activities or the said assessee only which are specifically assessed; or not. 4. Coupled with this, the assessee’s stand all along is that the impugned advances by way of non-current investments nowhere carried out any interest-bearing funds at all. The Revenue’s contentions on the other hand is that the assessee had itself sought to claim finance costs pertaining to its borrowing regarding development of plots. Be that as it may, this is apart from the fact that the clinching issue as to whether the assessee’s borrowings or advances in plotting activity contain interest stipulation or not has nowhere been examined in light of all relevant facts. We therefore deem it appropriate to restore this entire instant issue back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh factual verification. It is made clear that the assessee shall be very much at liberty to raise all factual as well as legal arguments in consequential proceedings as per law. 5. This appeal ITA 651/Hyd/2020 is partly allowed for statistical purposes in foregoing terms. 6. We next come to the 2nd assessee herein Kapil Property Developers Limited’s appeal ITA No.652/Hyd/2020 for A.Y. 2013- 14. 7. Its twin substantive grounds pleaded in the instant appeal challenge validity of section 147 / 148 proceedings in light of the fact that the same had arisen in connection with or as a consequence to search and seizure carried out in Kapil Group; and more particularly, M/s. Kapil Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. on
ITA Nos.651 to 659, 666 to 676 and 678 to 691/Hyd/2020
07.04.2017. The assessee’s vehement contention before us is that section 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Act; applicable in case of the searched assessee as well as any third person, contain non obstante clauses applicable at the cost of all general provisions including section 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act. We find no merit in assessee’s instant legal ground since there is no material found in the Assessing Officer’s reopening reasons suggesting the impugned proceedings as based on any seized material belonging, pertaining or relating to this taxpayer. We thus hold that the Assessing Officer had rightly initiated section 147 / 148 reopening herein. This first and foremost issue is decided in Revenue’s favour therefore. 8. Next comes the latter issue of correctness of both the lower authorities’ action adding notional interest on debentures income of Rs.7,81,900/-. The CIT(A)’s detailed discussion affirming the Assessing Officer’s action to this affect reads as under : “8.0 Addition towards interest on redeemable debentures of Rs.7,81,900/-. 8.1. It is seen that while finalizing the assessment proceedings, the AO has made the addition on the following grounds : "8. Interest on redeemable Debentures: During the course of assessment proceedings, it is observed that the assessee company has invested in redeemable debentures as under ………………………….On being asked the sources for the investments in debentures, the assessee stated that the sources are from investment sold during the year and proceeds from issue of redeemable debentures. However, the assessee did not substantiate its claim with any evidences. Further, the interest on redeemable debentures is taxable income. The assessee did not show the interest on redeemable debentures in its computation. Hence, the interest on redeemable debentures is calculated @ 14% which is worked out to RS.7,81,900/-. Addition:Rs.7,81,900/-". 8.2. The appellant has contested the said disallowance, and in support of his claim, the following submissions have been made by the appellant's AR:
ITA Nos.651 to 659, 666 to 676 and 678 to 691/Hyd/2020
"Since debentures were not allotted to our company, our company has regrouped / re-c1assified the previous years debit balance amount of Rs.55,85,000/- by deducting it from the credit balance amount of Rs.27,25,25,090/- received, as advance for Sale of Plots and disclosed the Net figure of Rs.26,69,40,090/- (Rs.27,25,25,090/- - Rs.55,85,000) under Schedule No.6.1 - Trade Payables - Advance for Sale of Plots, in the audited Balance sheet for the year ending 31-03-2014". 8.3 I have carefully considered the submissions made by the appellant as well as the observations of the AO in the impugned order. The AO has brought to tax notional interest @14% on debentures and the appellant contested the same stating that there is no material with the AO to conclude that payment has been made by the investee companies. The appellant has not brought any material to prove that such income has not been receivable by it except stating that AO has no material to make such addition. The appellant has filed certain evidences which were not admissible as it was not stated why the same were not filed before the AO as per Rule 46A. therefore the addition made by the AO is confirmed. Grounds pertaining to this are DISMISSED.”
Suffice to say, there is no material on record in either the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion throwing light in the corresponding details of the debentures scheme in issue which could be taken as benchmark for making the impugned addition. It further transpires that the assessee’s stand from day one was that it had neither credited the corresponding interest income nor actually received the same in the relevant previous year. We rather note that it had sought to file its additional evidence under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules which stands declined in the CIT(A)’s order. We thus are of the opinion that larger interest of justice would be met in case the instant issue is also restored back to the Assessing Officer to first examine the corresponding debentures scheme if any; followed by the actual credit or payment of interest in assessee’s favour. This latter substantive ground is partly accepted for statistical purposes. So as the outcome of the assessee’s impugned appeal herein ITA 652/Hyd/2020.
ITA Nos.651 to 659, 666 to 676 and 678 to 691/Hyd/2020
Third assessee Kapil Foods and Structures Pvt. Ltd. has filed its twin appeals ITA Nos.653 and 654/Hyd/2020 for A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14. 11. We advert to its first and foremost substantive ground in assessee’s appeal ITA 653/Hyd/2020 challenging validity of the impugned reopening. It emerges from a perusal of the case record that the Assessing Officer had framed his first round section 143(3) regular assessment on 18.03.2015 followed by his impugned action initiated section 148 proceedings vide notice dt.29.03.2019 on account of the following reasons recorded :
ITA Nos.651 to 659, 666 to 676 and 678 to 691/Hyd/2020
ITA Nos.651 to 659, 666 to 676 and 678 to 691/Hyd/2020
Learned departmental representative would hardly rebut the clinching fact that the Assessing Officer had initiated the impugned proceedings after a lapse of more than 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year without recording any reason that the assessee had not disclosed all the relevant particulars “fully” and “truly” in light of section 147 1st proviso. We make it clear that there is hardly any scope for addition or deletion or substitution in such reopening reasons in light of hon’ble Bombay high court’s landmark decision in Hindustan Lever Ltd Vs. R.B. Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom) holding that re-opening reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer have to be read on standalone basis only. We thus quash the impugned reopening for this sole reason. All other pleadings on merits are rendered academic. 13. This assessee’s appeal ITA 653/Hyd/2020 is allowed. 14. Coming to its next appeal ITA 654/Hyd/2020 for A.Y. 2013-14, assessee’s first and foremost substantive grievance seeks to reverse both the lower authorities’ action involving section 147 / 148 proceedings as in the main appeal ITA 652/Hyd/2020 decided in the preceding paragraphs. Same stands rejected in the very terms. The assessee’s second substantive grievance avers that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in disallowing its finance cost of Rs.1,90,52,483/- in the course of assessment dt.31.12.2019 as upheld in the CIT(A)’s order which has passed on the same lines in ITA No.651/Hyd/2020 decided
ITA Nos.651 to 659, 666 to 676 and 678 to 691/Hyd/2020
hereinabove. We thus adopt the very course of action herein as well to restore the instant issue back the Assessing Officer.
This appeal ITA 654/Hyd/2020 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 16. Next comes M/s. Nalgonda Realtors Pvt. Ltd having filed its three appeals ITA Nos.655 to 657/Hyd/2020 for A.Ys. 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2017-18; respectively. Its first and foremost substantive ground challenging validity of reopening in appeal ITA 655/Hyd/2020 is rejected in light of our detailed discussion in appeal ITA No.654/Hyd/2020 in the preceding paragraphs. Ordered accordingly. It next emerges that the assessee’s second substantive grievance pleaded herein seeks to delete section 36(1)(iii) interest disallowance pertaining to the alleged finance costs. Both the learned representatives duly agree that we have already decided identical issue in preceding paragraphs back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh factual verification and computation in light of assessee’s stand having denied any interest in the business of plot development as well as all other aspects. We adopt the very detailed discussion herein as well to restore the instant issue back to the Assessing Officer. Ordered accordingly. This appeal ITA 655/Hyd/2020 for A.Y. 2012-13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 17. The assessee’s 2nd and 3rd appeals i.e. ITA 656 and 657/Hyd/2020 for A.Y.s 2013-14 and 2017-18, respectively, challenge validity of section 148 / 147 proceedings. This issue in
ITA Nos.651 to 659, 666 to 676 and 678 to 691/Hyd/2020
A.Y. 2013-14 is rejected whereas its 2nd and 3rd substantive grounds challenging finance cost amount of Rs.41,64,131/- and notional interest on debentures of Rs.40,17,300/- in former and Rs.76,24,876/- and Rs.35,24,000/- (under the very twin heads) in A.Y. 2017-18 are restored back to the Assessing Officer as per our detailed discussion in preceding paragraphs. These twin appeals ITA Nos.656 and 657/Hyd/2020 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 18. We now proceed to deal with the next assessee M/s. Ujwala Publications and Developers Private Limited’s twin appeals i.e. ITA Nos.658 & 659/Hyd/2020 for A.Y. 2012-13 and 2013-14, respectively. 19. There is hardly any dispute that its first and foremost substantive ground challenging validity of re-opening stands on the same footing decided in the preceding paragraphs that section 147 / 148 mechanism set into motion by the Assessing Officer is not based on any seized material found during the course of search. The impugned re-opening is accordingly upheld therefore. Its latter substantive ground seeking to delete finance cost disallowance of Rs.15,37,601/- is restored back to the Assessing Officer in light of the foregoing detailed discussion in its group entity cases. This appeal ITA No.658/Hyd/2020 is partly allowed for statistical purposes in very terms. 20. We now advert to ITA No.659/Hyd/2020 involving A.Y. 2013-14. We note qua the assessee’s legal ground challenging validity of the impugned re-opening that the Assessing Officer had
ITA Nos.651 to 659, 666 to 676 and 678 to 691/Hyd/2020
framed his section 143(3) regular assessment on 22.03.2016 followed by the departmental search action dt.07.04.2017 finally leading to initiation of section 148 proceedings vide notice dt.27.03.2019 i.e., beyond four years period from the end of the relevant assessment year in light of section 147 first proviso. There is further no dispute that the Assessing Officer had not attributed the assessee’s failure “fully” and “truly” disclosing all the relevant particulars in the first round. We therefore quash the impugned re- opening itself for this precise reason in light of our foregoing detailed discussion. 21. Next comes M/s. Indur Avenues and Foods Private Limited having filed its appeals ITA Nos.666 and 667/Hyd/2020 for A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14; respectively. Its foregoing first appeal raises two substantive grounds i.e. validity of section 147 proceedings and finance cost disallowance of Rs.15,78,237/-; respectively. Suffice to say, we make it clear that its former substantive ground carries no merit since the impugned reopening is not based on any seized material (supra). And that the latter issue of finance cost disallowance alone stands restored back to the Assessing Officer in the preceding paragraphs. Ordered accordingly. This appeal ITA 666/Hyd/2020 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 22. Coming to this assessee’s latter appeal ITA No.667/Hyd/2020, we find that the Assessing Officer had framed his section 143(3) assessment on 18.02.2016 for A.Y. 2013-14 followed by his section 148 notice dt.29.03.2019 issued beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. We thus apply our foregoing detailed discussion mutatis mutandis to quash the impugned re-opening. All other pleadings on merits
ITA Nos.651 to 659, 666 to 676 and 678 to 691/Hyd/2020
are rendered academic. This appeal ITA No.667/Hyd/2020 is partly allowed in above terms.
Next comes M/s. Kausalya Management Services Pvt. Limited having filed ITA Nos.668, 669 and 691/Hyd/2020 for A.Y.s 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2017-18; respectively. 24. A combined perusal of the former twin appeals ITA Nos.668 and 669/Hyd/2020 suggest that the Assessing Officer has framed his section 143(3) regular assessments on 31.01.2014 and 09.10.2015 in A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 followed by his section 148 notices; both dt.27.03.2019 i.e. beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment years. We thus invoke section 147 1st proviso in light of our detailed discussion in preceding paragraphs to quash both these re-assessments in ITA Nos.668 and 669/Hyd/2020. These appeals are accepted. 25. This assessee’s third appeal ITA No.691/Hyd/2020 seeking to delete finance cost disallowance of Rs.8,315,248/- made in both the lower authorities is restored back to the Assessing Officer in light of our detailed discussion in preceding paragraphs allowed for statistical purposes. 26. Next assessee M/s. Indur Developers and Agencies Private Limited filed three appeals ITA No.670 to 672/Hyd/2020 for A.Y.s 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2016-17; respectively. Suffice to say, its first and foremost appeal herein i.e. ITA No.670/Hyd/2020 has arisen on account of section 148 proceedings initiated on 28.03.2019 for re-opening a regular assessment framed on 09.03.2015 in A.Y. 2012-13. We thus invoke
ITA Nos.651 to 659, 666 to 676 and 678 to 691/Hyd/2020
section 147 1st proviso in light of our detailed discussion in preceding paragraphs to accept the assessee’s arguments challenging validity of the impugned re-opening. All other pleadings are rendered academic. This assessee’s appeal ITA No.670/Hyd/2020 is allowed. 27. Same order to follow in this assessee’s latter appeal ITA No.671/Hyd/2020 involving A.Y. 2013-14 and section 143(3) regular assessment on 29.03.2016 followed by section 148 notice dt.23.08.2019. This appeal ITA No.671/Hyd/2020 stands accepted therefore. 28. Coming to ITA No.672/Hyd/2020 for A.Y. 2016-17 raising the sole substantive issue of disallowance of finance charges amounting to Rs.25,15,910/-, both the learned representatives very much agree that the same also deserves to be restored back to the Assessing Officer in light of our detailed discussion in the preceding paragraphs. Ordered accordingly. This appeal ITA No.672/ Hyd/2020 is allowed for statistical purposes.
Next comes M/s. Kousalya Agro Farms and Developers Private Limited’s four appeals ITA Nos.673 to 676/Hyd/2020 involving A.Ys.2012-13 to 2014-15 and 2017-18; respectively. 30. We find at the outset that its former twin appeals involve section 143(3) assessments framed on 14.03.2015 and 24.03.2016; respectively followed by the Assessing Officer’s section 148 as many notices issued on 28.03.2019 issued after a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. We thus quote section 147 1st proviso in light of our preceding detailed discussion to quash both these re-openings. All other pleadings on merits in both these
ITA Nos.651 to 659, 666 to 676 and 678 to 691/Hyd/2020
appeals are rendered academic. These appeals ITA No.673 and 674/Hyd/2020 stands accepted. 31. We now advert to ITA No.675 & 676/Hyd/2020 for A.Y.s 2014-15 and 2015-16, respectively. 32. The assessee’s former substantive ground in A.Y. 2014-15 challenging validity of re-opening stands declined in light of the fact that the same is based on a tangible material than any seized document during the course of search. This legal ground fails accordingly. 33. The assessee’s latter substantive ground in A.Y. 2014-15 herein as well as sole substantive grievance in ITA No.676/Hyd/2020 seeking to delete finance charges disallowance of Rs.24,09,170/- and 1,33,94,799/- sttands restored back to the Assessing Officer in light of our detailed discussion in the preceding main case. This assessee’s third appeal ITA No.675/Hyd/2020 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and 4th appeal i.e. ITA No.676/Hyd/2020 is allowed for statistical purposes. Ordered accordingly. 34. Next assessee is Kausalya Shelters Private Limited in appeal ITA Nos.678 to 680/Hyd/2020 for A.Ys. 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2017-18; respectively. 35. We notice its first and foremost appeal that the Assessing Officer had framed his section 143(3) assessment dt.12.10.2015 followed by section 148 notice issued on 28.03.2019 i.e. beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. We thus quote section 147 first proviso in light of our foregoing detailed
ITA Nos.651 to 659, 666 to 676 and 678 to 691/Hyd/2020
discussion to quash the impugned re-opening. This appeal ITA No.678/Hyd/2020 is allowed. 36. We next find its second appeal ITA No.679/Hyd/2020 that the impugned re-opening notice dt.30.03.2019 is very well with 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year 2014-15. We therefore placed reliance on our preceding detailed discussion to uphold validity of the impugned re-opening. The assessee’s latter substantive ground raising issue of difference of interest credited to the profit and loss account and interest on light of Form 26AS is more found to be requiring more a reconciliation at the Assessing Officer’s end than any substantive adjudication. The same stands restored back to the learned assessed authority for his consequential factual verification. This appeal ITA No.679/ Hyd/2020 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 37. We now come to ITA No.680/Hyd/2020 raising the sole substantive ground of disallowance of finance charges of Rs.18,19,149/- which stands restored back to the Assessing Officer in preceding terms. This appeal ITA No.680/Hyd/2020 is allowed for statistical purposes. 38. Next assessee is M/s. Kausalya Avenues Private Limited having filed appeals ITA Nos.681 to 685/Hyd/2020 for A.Y. 2012- 13, 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19; respectively. Its identical sole substantive ground in all assessment years (except A.Y. 2013-14) seeks to reverse both the lower authorities’ action disallowing finance costs of Rs.54,22,428/-, Rs.54,95,788/-, Rs.95,48,200/- and Rs.79,87,930/-; respectively, which stands
ITA Nos.651 to 659, 666 to 676 and 678 to 691/Hyd/2020
restored back to the Assessing Officer in light of our foregoing findings in preceding paragraphs. Ordered accordingly. The assessee’s sole substantive grievance in A.Y. 2013- 14 seeking to delete interest income on redeemable debentures of Rs.1,47,63,000/- is restored back to the assessing authority in preceding terms. These five appeals ITA Nos.681 to 685/Hyd/2020 are allowed for statistical purposes. 39. Next assessee / appellant is M/s.Kapil Infrastructure Avenues Pvt. Ltd. having filed two appeals 686 and 687/Hyd/2020 in A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 40. We do not find any merit in its former substantive ground in ITA 686/Hyd/2020 for A.Y. 2012-13 challenging validity of re- opening since the same is found to be based on tangible material than any seized material during the course of search. We thus quote our foregoing detailed discussion to affirm both the lower authorities action initiating section 148 / 147 proceedings to this affect. The assessee’s latter twin substantive grounds in A.Y. 2012-13 seeking to delete disallowance of finance costs of Rs.24,34,429/- and trade payables of interest disallowance of Rs.42,12,15,816/- are restored back to the Assessing Officer in light of our detailed discussion in preceding paragraphs. Ordered accordingly. This appeal ITA No.686/Hyd/2020 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 41. Coming to the assessee’s latter appeal ITA No.687/Hyd/ 2020, we now advert to its first and foremost substantive ground challenging validity of re-opening and note that the Assessing Officer herein had framed his section 143(3) assessment on
ITA Nos.651 to 659, 666 to 676 and 678 to 691/Hyd/2020
03.03.2016 followed by section 148 notice issued on 29.03.2019 i.e. beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. We thus quote section 147 first proviso in light of our detailed discussion in preceding paragraphs to quash the impugned re- opening. All other pleadings on merits are rendered academic. 42. This assessee’s latter appeal ITA No.687/Hyd/2020 is allowed in above terms. 43. The last assessee herein is M/s.Preethi Foods and Villas Private Limited in ITA Nos.688 to 690/Hyd/2020 for A.Y.s 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2017-18; respectively. 44. Suffice to say, the Assessing Officer has framed his regular assessments herein on 09.03.2015 and 10.03.2016 in the former instant twin appeals; respectively followed by his section 148 notice dt.27.03.2019 issued beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year in light of section 147 first proviso. We thus quash the impugned re-opening proceedings in light of our preceding detailed discussion. These former twin appeals ITA Nos.688 & 689/Hyd/2020 are allowed. 45. We are now left with ITA Nos.690/Hyd/2020 for A.Y. 2017-18 raising the sole substantive grievance of finance cost amounting to Rs.99,42,325/- upheld in the CIT(A)’s order which is restored back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh factual verification and adjudication in light of our detailed discussion in the preceding paragraphs. This last appeal ITA No.690/Hyd/2020 is allowed for statistical purposes. 46. It is made clear before parting that Mr. Ramarao had vehemently argued that it is only the amount (s) in issue of finance
ITA Nos.651 to 659, 666 to 676 and 678 to 691/Hyd/2020
costs in all these appeals; as upheld in the CIT(A)’s order than the entire sum(s) taken in assessment that ought to form subject matter of adjudication in the consequential proceedings. He sought to buttress the point that the CIT(A) has already granted part relief in all these cases which has nowhere been challenged at the Revenue’s behest. We find no merit in the assessees’ instant arguments since the Assessing Officer has to examine the assessees’ fund position as well as the clinching issue as to whether the corresponding borrowings claimed to have been carrying no interest involving plotted land buyers, afresh and in light of all the evidence on wholesome basis only. The assessees’ foregoing argument stands rejected therefore. Ordered accordingly.
To sum up, these assessees’ appeals ITA Nos.653, 659, 667 to 671, 673, 674, 678, 687, 688 and 689/Hyd/2020 are allowed and remaining appeals i.e. ITA Nos.651, 652, 654 to 658, 666, 667, 672, 675, 676, 679 to 686, 690 and 691/Hyd/2020 are partly allowed. A copy of this common order be placed in respective case files.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21st March, 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (S.S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Hyderabad, dated 21st March, 2022. TYNM/sps
ITA Nos.651 to 659, 666 to 676 and 678 to 691/Hyd/2020
Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Dakshin Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd, Survey No.115/1, I.T. Park, Nanakramguda, Serilingampally Mandal, Hyderabad – 500 34. 2 Kapil Property Developers Limited, H.No.1-7-1382/2, Advocates Colony, Hanumakonda – 506002. 3 Kapil Foods and Structures Private Limited, 2-5760, House Opp: Dist. Collectprate, Subedari, Warangal -506001. 4 Nalgonda Realtors Private Limited, Plot No.2, Madhupala Enclave, Akbar Road, Secunderabad. 5 Ujwala Publications and Developers Pvt. Ltd. 2-5-760, Kapil House, Opp: District Collectorate, Subedari, Hanumakonda, Warangal – 506001. 6 M/s. Indur Avenues and Foods Private Limited, Sarangapur Village, Gangastan, Nizamabad – 503224. 7 M/s.Kausalya Management Services and Structures Private Limited, No.3-1-188, CVRN Nagar, Karimnagar – 505001. 8 M/s. Kausalya Agro Farms & Developers Private Limited, H.No.16-31, 9th Phase, KPHB Main Road, Kukatpally, Hyderabad – 500072. 9 Kapil Infra Avenues Private Limited, No.40-15-3/1, Chandrapuram Near Benz Circle, Labbipet, Vijayawada – 520010. 10. Indur Developers and Agencies Pvt. Ltd. 40-14-3/1, Chandramoulipuram, Near Benz Circle, Labbipet, Vijayawada - 520010. 11. Kausalya Shelters Private Limited, 3-1-175, C.V.R. Nagar, Karimnagar – 505001. 12. M/s. Kausalya Avenues Pvt. Ltd. No.3-1-631, C.V.R. Nagar, Karimangar – 505001. 13. Preethi Foods and Villas Private Limited, 7-3-284, Dwarakanagar, Khammam – 507002. 14 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(3), Hyderabad. 15 CIT(Appeals) – 12 Hyderabad. 16 PCIT (Central), Hyderabad. 17 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 18 Guard File By Order