Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘ A ‘ BENCH, HYDERABAD.
Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD ‘ A ‘ BENCH, HYDERABAD.
BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE)
ITA No.452/Hyd/2020 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) M/s. Andhra Pradesh Vs. Income Tax Officer, Industrial Infrastructure Ward 1(2), Hyderabad. Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad. PAN AABCA9029K Appellant Respondent
Appellant By : Shri B. Satyanarayana Moorthy, C. A. Respondent By : Shri Rajendra Kumar (D.R.)
Date of Hearing : 27.01.2022. Date of Pronouncement : 27.01.2022.
O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for Asst. Year 2015-16 arises
from the order of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax/CIT – 1,
Hyderabad dt.19.05.2020 passed in proceedings under Section 263
of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).
2 ITA No.452/Hyd/2020 2. We notice at the outset that assessee's instant appeal suffers
from 37 days delay in filing. Learned counsel submitted that due
to the outbreak of pandemic covid 19 unable to get the documents
from the department which caused the impugned delay in filing of
the instant appeal. 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 thirty seven
days is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the
circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Case
is now taken up for adjudication on merits therefore.
The main grievance of the assessee is that the Pr.CIT/CIT-1,
Hyderabad Dt.19.05.2020 passed order under section 263 of the
Act without giving proper opportunity to substantiate its case.
Brief facts are that the assessee is a company filed its Return
of Income for the A.Y. 2015-16 on 29.09.2015 declaring a taxable
3 ITA No.452/Hyd/2020 income of Rs.31,27,25,520 claiming a depreciation of
Rs.17,11,41,739. Subsequently, the return was revised by claiming
higher depreciation of Rs.84,08,95,046. The case was selected for
scrutiny under section 143(3) of the Act and assessment was
completed on 30.12.2017 determining the taxable income of
Rs.1,07,29,000 under normal provisions and Rs.40,78,61,402 under
section 115JB of the Act by making disallowance u/s.14A relating
to prior period expenditure and addition of exempt income.
The case was selected for scrutiny to verify whether the
depreciation claimed by the assessee was correct or not. On
perusal of the assessment record, the Pr. CIT/CIT-1 came to a
conclusion that the assessment order dt.30.12.2017 is erroneous
and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore the Pr. CIT /
CIT-1 set aside the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act
Dt.30.12.2017. The Pr.CIT / CIT-1 directed the A.O. to redo the
assessment after examining the issue discussed in the Pr.CIT / CIT-
1 order and after allowing an opportunity of being heard to the
assessee. Aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before the
Tribunal.
4 ITA No.452/Hyd/2020 6. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted
that the Pr.CIT/CIT-1, Hyderabad passed the order u/s.263
Dt.19.05.2020 without giving an opportunity to the assessee of
being heard. He further submitted that the assessee has not
received any notice from the Pr.CIT/CIT-1, Hyderabad. He prayed
that the matter may be remitted back to the file of Pr.CIT/CIT-1,
Hyderabad for examining all the issues afresh.
On the other hand, the learned Department Representative
submitted that Pr.CIT/CIT-1 has afforded an opportunity but there
is no response from the assessee. He prayed that the order of
Pr.CIT/CIT-1 be upheld.
We have heard both the sides and perused the material on
record. There is no evidence before us that a notice was served on
the assessee. Therefore, we find force in the argument of the
assessee, however, not providing an opportunity of being heard is
not a valid ground to quash the order passed u/s.263 of the Act.
However, in order to meet the principles of natural justice, we set
aside the order passed by the Pr.CIT/CIT-1, Hyderabad and remit
5 ITA No.452/Hyd/2020 matter back to the file of the learned Pr. CIT / CIT-1 to afford one
more opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a
speaking order as per law. The assessee is directed to co-operate
with the Pr.CIT/CIT-1, Hyderabad for early disposal of the case.
Since we set aside the order of Pr.CIT/CIT-1 and remitting all the
issues to Pr.CIT/CIT-1, we are not going into the merits of the case.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th Jan.,2022.
Sd/- Sd/- (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) Accountant Member Judicial Member Hyderabad, Dt.27.01.2022. * Reddy gp Copy to : 1. Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, C/o M/s. Venugopal & Chenoy, C.As, 4-1-889/16/2, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 2. ITO, Ward 1(2), Hyderabad. 3. Pr. C I T/CIT-1, Hyderabad. 4. CIT-1, Hyderabad. 5. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 6. Guard File. By Order Sr. Pvt. Secretary, ITAT, Hyderabad.
6 ITA No.452/Hyd/2020