Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘A’ BENCH, HYDERABAD.
Before: SHRI S.S. GODARA & SHRI L. P. SAHUShri Gunimeda Rama Krishna,
O R D E R Per Bench : This Revenue’s appeal X-objection C.O. No.8/Hyd/2020 arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, C.O. No.8/Hyd/2020 Visakhapatnam’s order dt.31.01.2020 passed in case No.459/2015-16/CIT(A)-3/VSP/2019-20 in proceedings under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
We notice at the outset that the Revenue’s instant appeal suffers from 47 days delay in filing. It submitted that due to the outbreak of pandemic covid 19, all relevant records could not be compiled within the prescribed limitation. Case law Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, 1987 AIR 1353 (SC) and University of Delhi Vs. Union of India, Civil Appeal No.9488 & 9489/2019 dated 17th Dec., 2019 hold that such a delay; supported by cogent reasons, deserves to be condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that assessee's impugned delay of forty seven days is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned.
This Revenue’s appeal raise the following substantive grounds :
The assessee’s X-objectionC.O. No.8/Hyd/2020 pleads the following grounds: “
1. The learned CIT(A)-3, Visakhapatnam having held that there was absolutely no nexus or live link with the reasons recorded and no addition towards income having been made arising out of reasons recorded ought to have clearly held that the addition of unexplained credits at Rs.4,28,55,828 could not have been made and therefore ought to have deleted the addition towards unexplained credits of Rs.4,28,55,828.
2. Without prejudice to the foresaid ground the CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated on merits on the C.O. No.8/Hyd/2020 addition made towards unexplained credits at Rs.4,28,55,828 which are totally contrary to the facts and evidence on record.
3. Any other ground(s) that may be argued at the time of hearing.”
5. Learned departmental representative submitted in light of Revenue’s second substantive ground that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deciding the issue in assessee's favour going by the tribunal's order which dealt with a reopening initiated beyond the specified period of four years in light of 147 1st proviso whereas the clinching fact herein remains that the assessing authority had nowhere framed section 143(3) regular assessment.
6. The assessee has strongly supported the CIT(A)’s detailed discussions on the foregoing legal issue. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the Revenue’s instant argument and find merit therein. It is made clear that the Assessing Officer had not framed any section 143(3) assessment so as to give rise to application of 147 first proviso that he ought to quote the taxpayer’s failure in disclosing “fully” and “purely” all material facts necessary for assessment of the taxable income in issue. There is further no issue that the CIT(A) has not adjudicated any other facet of the issue in tune with the corresponding reopening reasons nor has he touched upon merits of the C.O. No.8/Hyd/2020 foregoing unexplained credits addition on merits. Faced with this situation, we restore the instant issue both this ITA 372/Hyd/2020 and C.O. No.8/Hyd/2020 back to the CIT(A) for his fresh adjudication in light of 250(6) of the Act requiring him to frame points of determination followed by a detailed adjudication as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly. All other pleadings in both these cases are rendered academic. 8. This Revenue’s appeal ITA 372/Hyd/2020 and assessee's C.O. 8/Hyd/2020 are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st Mar., 2022.