QUARTZKRAFT LLP,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes
ITA 836/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Sept 2025AY 2021-22
Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia
For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(3)
return of the subsequent year
(i.e., F.Y. 2020–21, relevant to the year under consideration).
Reliance was placed on proviso to section 37(3) of the CGST Act
(page no.57 of the paper book) to say that omitted details could be
furnished before 30.11.2020/filing of the relevant annual return ... should be treated as turnover of that year,
not of F.Y. 2019–20. He further submitted that, even as per the
proviso to section 37(3) of the CGST Act (relied upon by the
assessee), any such omission pertaining to F.Y. 2019–20 ought to
have been rectified
