A.P. Beverages Corporation Limited V. The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Hyderabad

ITTA/1/2013

AI Insights

The case involves A.P. Beverages Corporation Limited, the appellant, against the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Hyderabad, the respondent. The core of the dispute revolves around the procedural handling of an appeal by the ITAT, which remanded the case back to the CIT(A) without making a substantive decision. The appellant challenged this remand, questioning the ITAT's reliance on a statutory amendment and its decision to not address the grounds of appeal directly. The High Court found that the ITAT acted within its jurisdiction to remand the case for a fresh hearing, especially in light of new legislative amendments that the CIT(A) had not previously considered.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 796399 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-06-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, Income Tax Rules
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Income tax appellate tribunal; Jurisdiction; Remand; Statutory amendment
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A. No.1 of 2013 DATE: 18.06.2013 Between: A.P. Beverages Corporation Limited, Hyderabad. … Appellant And The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Hyderabad. … Respondent This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A. No.1 of 2013 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be admitted on the following suggested substantial questions of law. “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is not perverse in not deciding the appeal and setting it aside holding a statutory amendment by State is additional evidence and referring to Rule 46-A of Income Tax Rules which only refer to evidence on facts that are filed before the first appellate authority? 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in not deciding any of the grounds and setting aside the matter to the file of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider the issue afresh even after hearing elaborately merely on a ground that there is an amendment to the State statute subsequently, though such a ground is not taken by the appellant but by the departmental representative? 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in not accepting the plea of the assessee that assuming jurisdiction by the Commissioner under Section 263 of Income Tax Act is not correct particularly in view of enquiry about the issue by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings and also that of the Commissioner of Income Tax during the proceedings under Section 263 of the Act for the Assessment year 2002-03 on the same issue?” From a perusal of the impugned order, we find that the learned Tribunal has not decided anything and has remanded the matter to the file of CIT(A) to consider the issue afresh. It has been observed by the learned Tribunal in paragraph 8 of the impugned order that since the CIT(A) had no occasion to consider the amendments passed by the Andhra Pradesh Legislature on 16.04.2012, we restore the issue in dispute back to the file of CIT(A) with a direction to decide the issue de-novo after examining the said amendments. In paragraph 10, the Tribunal has further observed that “since the issue under consideration is identical to the case decided by the ITAT in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2006-07 in ITA 693/H/11, dated 30.07.2012, respectively following the same, we set aside the matter to the file of CIT(A) to consider the issue afresh in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee to put forward its case”. Therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal has ample jurisdiction either to decide the issue by it or to remand the matter for fresh hearing. When the Tribunal has not decided anything else, we do not think that any substantial question of law is involved in the matter of this nature. We, therefore, declined to admit the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand dismissed. No costs. _____________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 18.06.2013 ES "