HARIPRIYA TEKUPALLY,HYDERABAD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INT TXN - 2, HYDERABAD

MA 17/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves two Miscellaneous Applications filed by assessees Gangaram Reddy Tekulapalli and Smt. Haripriya Tekulapalli against the Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad, concerning the assessment year 2014-2015. The applications were filed under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking rectification of the Tribunal's earlier order dated 12.02.2025, which allegedly overlooked certain grounds of appeal. The assessees argued that the Tribunal failed to consider specific grounds challenging the validity of the notice issued under section 148 and the absence of notice under section 143(2), as well as the adherence to faceless assessment procedures mandated by recent CBDT circulars. The Tribunal acknowledged the oversight regarding ground no.6 and ground no.7 but dismissed the concerns related to ground no.5, leading to a partial allowance of the applications.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 360793 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Other Referred Cases: Pr. CIT vs. Broadway Shoe Company, Ravindra Reddy & Others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAHUL SINGHANIA
• Assessee Lawyers: P R SURESH
• Keywords: Validity of assessment
• Section: 153A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.Nos.16 & 17/Hyd./2025 Arising out of ITA.Nos.786 & 787/Hyd/2024 - Assessment Year 2014-2015 Gangaram Reddy Tekulapalli, PAN ADUPT2645K Smt. Haripriya Tekulapalli PAN ADUPT2644J Plot No.56, Street No.7, Telecom Nagar, Gachibowli, Hyderabad – 500 032 State of Telangana vs. The Income Tax Officer, (Int. Taxn)-2, Hyderabad. Telangana. (Appellants) (Respondent) For Assessees : CA P R Suresh For Respondent : Shri Rahul Singhania, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 09.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 19.05.2025 ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G. : These two Miscellaneous Applications M.A.Nos.16 & 17/Hyd./2025 are filed by the above two assessee’s u/sec.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order of the Tribunal dated 12.02.2025 passed in 2 M.A.Nos.16 & 17/Hyd./2025 ITA.Nos.786 & 787/Hyd/2024, for the assessment year 2014-2015. 2. The assessee has narrated the facts and mistakes stated to be apparent on record from the order of the Tribunal dated 12.02.2025 and the relevant contents of Miscellaneous Application filed by the Assessee’s are reproduced as under : 3 M.A.Nos.16 & 17/Hyd./2025 4 M.A.Nos.16 & 17/Hyd./2025 5 M.A.Nos.16 & 17/Hyd./2025 6 M.A.Nos.16 & 17/Hyd./2025 3. CA P R Suresh, Learned Counsel for the Assessee, referring the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessees’ submitted that, the Tribunal while adjudicating the appeals by an inadvertent error has not considered grounds of appeal nos.5, 6 and 7. Further, the appellant has challenged the validity of notice issued u/sec.148 by way of ground no.5 and also challenged the order of the assessment without issuing notice u/sec.143(2) 7 M.A.Nos.16 & 17/Hyd./2025 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short \"the Act\"], by way of ground no.6. The assessees’ had also challenged the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer in light of provisions of sec.130, 144B and 153A of the Act along with CBDT Circular dated 28.03.2022 and 29.03.2022 mandating re-assessment proceedings only in faceless manner. The assessees’ has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in batch of W.P.Nos.25903 in the matter of Ravindra Reddy & Others dated 14.09.2023. Although, the assessees’ has challenged the above issues by way of specific grounds, while adjudicating the issues, the Tribunal has restricted it’s findings only on other grounds in light of provisions of sec.144C of the Act and ignored other grounds challenged by the assessees’ which goes to the root of the matter. Therefore, he submitted that, non-consideration of grounds of appeal and non-consideration of written submissions constitute a mistake apparent on record which needs to be rectified u/sec.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8 M.A.Nos.16 & 17/Hyd./2025 3.1. The assessees’ had also relied upon various judicial precedents in support of their contentions. However, the Tribunal order does not make any reference to the judicial precedents relied upon by the assessees’. The failure to consider the covered judicial decisions which were argued in deciding the appeals being the relevant and directly on the point and supported the assessees’ cases, constitute a mistake apparent from the record which can be rectified u/sec.254(2) of the Act. Therefore, he submitted that, the order of the Tribunal dated 12.02.2025 passed in ITA.Nos.786 & 787/Hyd/2024, for the assessment year 2014-2015, needs to be recalled. 4. Shri Rahul Singhania, Sr. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, referring to CBDT Circular No.187/2020 dated 13.08.2020 submitted that, as per the scheme of Faceless Assessment Scheme-2019, the CBDT in exercise of powers u/sec.119 of the Act, directs that all the assessment orders shall herewith be passed by National e-Assessment Centre through the Faceless Assessment Scheme-2019, except in cases where the assessment orders in cases 9 M.A.Nos.16 & 17/Hyd./2025 assigned to central charges and assessment orders in cases assigned to international taxation charges. Since the assessees’ cases are assigned to international tax charges, the provisions of sec.144B of the Act does not apply and, therefore, the Assessing Officer has rightly completed the assessment without going into the procedure provided u/sec.144B of the Act. The Learned DR referring to the decision of Hon’ble Jammu & Kashir High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs., Broadway Shoe Company in ITA.No.10/2017, order dated 11.10.2018, submitted that, herein a case where the assessee has not filed his return of income in response to notice issued u/sec.148 of the Act, therefore, once the assessee has not filed return of income on or before the dates specified in which notice issued u/sec.148 of the Act, then, the question of issue of notice u/sec.143(2) does not arise. Therefore, there is no merit in the grounds taken by the assessee. The Learned Sr. AR further referring to the legal issue raised by the assessee on the limitation of assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer submitted that, the said legal ground is not part of the grounds of 10 M.A.Nos.16 & 17/Hyd./2025 appeal filed by the assessee along with Form-36. When there is no specific ground, mere argument during the course of hearing cannot be considered for adjudication at the issue. The Tribunal has rightly restricted it’s adjudication to the grounds of appeal agitated along with Form-36 and thus, the present argument of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee without any substantive grounds of appeal, cannot be accepted. Therefore, he submitted that, there is no merit in the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessees’ against the common order of the Tribunal dated 12.02.2025 in ITA.Nos.786 & 787/Hyd/2024 for the assessment year 2014-2015 and thus, the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessees’ should be dismissed. 5. We have heard both the parties and considered relevant contents of the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessees’ in light of order of the Tribunal dated 12.02.2025 passed in ITA.Nos.786 & 787/Hyd/2024, for the assessment year 2014-2015. Upon careful consideration of the findings of the Tribunal in paras 11 to 11.3 of the order dated 12.02.2025, the Tribunal has rejected the contention 11 M.A.Nos.16 & 17/Hyd./2025 of the assessee on the limitation of final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer in light of time limit provided for filing objection against the draft assessment order and after considering relevant facts held that, the assessee cannot be permitted to raise objection having failed to raise the objection within 30 days before the Assessing Officer/DRP. The assessee cannot take benefit of laches / lapses and raise an objection now for not passing the order within 30 days by the Assessing Officer after passing of the draft assessment order. After going through the findings recorded by the Tribunal in para-11.3 of the order dated 12.02.2025, in our considered view, it covers the ground no.5 taken by the assessee challenging the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 02.11.2023 on the ground of limitation and also touched-upon and, therefore, the grounds of objection filed by the assessees’ in the present Miscellaneous Applications on this issue is devoid of merit and cannot be accepted. 6. In so far as ground no.6, although, the assessees’ has taken a specific ground on the issue of validity of 12 M.A.Nos.16 & 17/Hyd./2025 assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer in absence of issuing statutory notice u/sec.143(2) of the Act, but, the Tribunal by an inadvertent error, has not considered ground no.6 of assessee’s appeal while adjudicating the appeal. To this extent, in our considered view, the order of the Tribunal suffers from mistake which needs to be rectified u/sec.254(2) of the Act. 7. In so far as the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee on ground no.7 that, there is no specific adjudication of ground no.7 of the assessee challenging the validity of assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer without considering the provisions of sec.130, sec.144B and sec.153A of the Act along with CBDT Circulars dated 28.03.2022 and 29.03.2022. Although, the Revenue has filed CBDT Circular no.187/2020 dated 13.08.2020, in our considered view, the applicability of said circular in light of arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee in light of provisions of sec.130, sec.144B and sec.153A needs to be discussed. Since the Tribunal has not given any finding on ground no.7, in our considered view, 13 M.A.Nos.16 & 17/Hyd./2025 there is no mistake to the extent of not considering ground no.7 raised by the assessee. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, there is merit in the Miscellaneous Applications of the assessees’ on the issue of ground nos.6 and 7 and the same has not been specifically adjudicated by the Tribunal. Thus, we recall the order of the Tribunal dated 12.02.2025 passed in ITA.Nos.786 & 787/Hyd/2024, for the assessment year 2014-2015, qua ground nos.6 and 7 of assessees’ appeals. 8. Further, we reject the contentions raised by the assessees’ qua ground no.5. All other issues raised by the assessees’ and considered by the Tribunal shall be final and the recalling order of the Tribunal should be confined or restricted only to ground nos.6 and 7 of assessees’ appeals. The Registry is directed to list the appeals in ITA.Nos.786 & 787/Hyd/2024, for the assessment year 2014-2015, in due course by intimating to both the parties. 14 M.A.Nos.16 & 17/Hyd./2025 9. In the result, M.A. Nos.16 & 17/Hyd./2025 of the assessees’ are partly allowed in terms of our observations hereinabove. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19.05.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [RAVISH SOOD] [MANJUNATHA G] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated 19th May, 2025 VBP Copy to 1 & 2. Gangaram Reddy Tekulapalli, AND Smt. Haripriya Tekulapalli, Plot No.56, Street No.7, Telecom Nagar, Gachibowli,Hyderabad – 500 032. State of Telangana 3. The Income Tax Officer, (Int. Taxn)-2, Hyderabad. 4. The Disputes Resolution Panel, Bengaluru. 5. The DR ITAT “A” Bench, Hyderabad. 6. Guard File. /By Order// //True Copy// "