EXPONENTIAL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD -17(1), HYDERABAD
आआआआ आआआआआआ आआआआआआ, आआआआआआआआ आआआ
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad
BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1115/Hyd/2024
(निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11)
M/s. Exponential Technologies
Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad.
PAN:AABCE7729C
Vs.
Income Tax Officer,
Ward-17(1), Hyderabad.
(Appellant)
(Respondent)
निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A.
रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue by:: Shri Bose Babu Alli, SR-DR
सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 24/12/2024
घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 01/01/2025
आदेश/ORDER
PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.:
This appeal is filed by M/s. Exponential Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,
Hyderabad (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by Learned ADDL/JCIT (“Ld. first appellate authority”), dated
10.09.2024 for the A.Y. 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds :
“ 1. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 9/02/2011 passed by the ITA No.1115/Hyd/2024 2
CPC is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in making adjustments in intimation order u/s 143(1) on debatable and controversial issues which is beyond the scope of section 143(1) of the Act.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the Intimation
Order u/s 143(1) should be issued within one year from the end of the financial year in which return is being filed.
4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in issuing Intimation Order u/s 143(1) on 09.11.2023, well after the time limit prescribed in the Income Tax
Act, 1961. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the Intimation Order issued by him is time barred hence it is void ab initio.
6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in calculating interest u/s 234B & 234C without appreciating the facts of the case.
7. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that Intimation Order u/s 143(1) issued itself is invalid, Therefore interest calculated u/s 234B & 234C is invalid and bad in law.
8. The appellant may add or alter or amend or modify or substitute or delete and/ or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a company engaged in the business of website maintenance and multimedia presentation, filed its original Return of Income
(“ROI”) for A.Y. 2010-11 on 27.09.2010 admitting total income of Rs.27,48,863/-. On the same day, the assessee revised the same
ITA No.1115/Hyd/2024 3
return by admitting total income at Rs.17,768/-. Subsequently, the ROI has been processed by the Centralised Processing Centre
(“CPC”) u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on 09.11.2023 computing the total income at Rs.27,48,863/- by raising a total demand of Rs.9,85,711/-.
4. Aggrieved with the intimation of CPC, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. first appellate authority. However, the Ld.
first appellate authority was not convinced with the submission of the assessee and accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. first appellate authority, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Learned Authorised
Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that, the assessee after filing the original ROI, revised the ROI on the same day by admitting total income at Rs.17,768/-. However, the CPC computed the total income at Rs.27,48,863/- instead of Rs.17,768/-.
Therefore, the Ld. AR prayed before the bench to make a suitable direction to the CPC to verify the revised return of the assessee and provides the reason for computing the total income at Rs.27,48,863/-.
ITA No.1115/Hyd/2024 4
Per contra, the Learned Department Representative (“Ld. DR”) relying on the order of Ld. first appellate authority objected for giving any further opportunity to the assessee. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made by either side. The Ld. AR brought our attention to page no.23 of the paper book, containing the acknowledgment of revised return for A.Y. 2010-11 and submitted that, the assessee has admitted the total income of Rs.17,768/- as per their revised return. The Ld. AR also brought to our notice page nos.45 to 49 of the paper book containing the intimation of CPC u/s.143(1) of the Act dated 09.02.2011, wherein, the CPC has taken the total income at Rs.27,48,863/- without giving any reason for arriving at the total income at Rs.27,48,863/- instead of Rs.17,768/-. We have gone through the revised ROI as well as page no.23 CPC order u/s.143(1) of the Act at page nos.45 to 49 of the paper book and found that the CPC has taken the total income at Rs.27,48,863/- instead of total income of Rs.17,768/- as admitted by the assessee in its revised return. Therefore, considering the principle of natural justice, in our considered opinion, an opportunity should be provided to the assessee before any ITA No.1115/Hyd/2024 5
addition / adjustment to be made to the returned income.
Accordingly, we restore the issue to the file of CPC with a direction to verify the revised return of the assessee and supply the reason for computing the total income at Rs.27,48,863/- instead of Rs.17,768/- and after receiving the explanation from the assessee, decide the issue as per law. Accordingly, the grounds of the assessee stand disposed off.
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 1st Jan., 2025. (VIJAY PAL RAO)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Hyderabad.
Dated: 01.01.2025. * Reddy gp
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
M/s. Exponential Technologies Pvt. Ltd., C/o P. Murali & Co., C.As, 6-3-655/2/3, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500082 2. ITO, Ward 17(1), Hyderabad. 3. Pr.CIT, Hyderabad. 4. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 5. Guard file.
BY ORDER,