FALAKNUMA PALACE TRUST.,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(4)., HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1122/HYD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 January 2022AY 2013-1410 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court precedent cited by the Revenue applies only to the assessing authority's powers and does not restrict appellate authorities from entertaining new claims. The Tribunal also noted that the lower authorities failed to consider contractual obligations and tribunal directions.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,03,96,762 which was declined by both the lower authorities. The Revenue argued that the claim was not made in the original or revised return, citing a Supreme Court precedent.

What were the issues?

Whether appellate authorities can entertain a new claim not made in the original or revised return, and whether the lower authorities properly considered contractual obligations and tribunal directions regarding a deduction claim.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘ A ‘ BENCH, HYDERABAD.

Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY & SHRI S.S. GODARA

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.A

O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for Asst. Year 2013-14 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Hyderabad’s order dt.30.11.2016 passed in case No.247/CIT(A)-7/2015-16 in proceedings under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Coming to the assessee's sole substantive grievance that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in declining its deduction claim of Rs.1,03,96,762; we note that the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion affirming the Assessing Officer’s action to this effect read as follows :

-- Space left intentionally --

3.

Mr. Goutam vehemently reiterated the Revenue’s stand that the assessee had not claimed any such claim either in the original return or in its revised return to this effect before the assessing authority. He quotes case law Goetz (India) Limited Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) that the Assessing Officer is precluded from entertaining such a claim raised otherwise than by filing of a revised return.

4.

We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant arguments as their lordships have made it clear in para 4 that the said precedent applies to powers of the assessing authority only and does not impinge upon the appellate authorities’ jurisdiction under the Act to entertain a new claim without filing the revised return.

5.

Coupled with this, it also emerges that this tribunal’s co-ordinate bench order in Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Vs. ACIT in to 332/Hyd/2007 decided on 11.2.2011 has prima facie upheld taxability of the alleged very sum(s) paid by M/s. Indian Hotels Co. as under :

6.

Learned department representative fails to rebut the clinching fact that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) have considered the mutual contractual obligations involving assessee-trust, Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan and M/s. Indian Hotels Co., vis-à-vis the tribunal’s directions qua the rent amount and all ancillary aspects.

7.

Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee's instantsole substantive grievance back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →