Tummala Veena, Hyd, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-2(2), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 1040/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1826 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-11-2018
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R S ARVINDAKSHANDR
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO

Judgement Text

ITA NOS 1039 1040 AND 1216 OF 2016 TUM MALA VEENA AND OTHERS. PAGE 1 OF 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.1039 & 1040/HYD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 & 2010-11) SMT. TUMMALA VEENA HYDERABAD PAN: ACCPT5857A VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NOS.1216/HYD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) SMT. TUMMALA PRASANTH KUMAR , HYDERABAD PAN: ABTPT7368N VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI S. RAMA RAO FOR REVENUE : SHRI R.S. ARVINDAKSHAN,DR O R D E R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. ALL ARE THE APPEALS OF THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES FOR THE A.YS 2009-10 & 2010-11 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-2, HYDERABAD, DATED 31.03.2018. BOTH THE ASSESSEES ARE RELATED AND THE ISSUES ARE COMMON, THEREFORE, THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON A ND CONSOLIDATED ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, TH E GROUNDS OF DATE OF HEARING: 01.11.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09.11.2018 ITA NOS 1039 1040 AND 1216 OF 2016 TUM MALA VEENA AND OTHERS. PAGE 2 OF 4 APPEALS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IN APPEAL NO.1039/H YD/2016 ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 1 THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS ERRONEOUS TO THE EXTENT IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE APPELLANT. 2 THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.4,49,632/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE I.T. AC T. 3 THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROVISIONS U/S 69B ARE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF T HE APPELLANT'S CASE AND FURTHER ERRED IN NOT PROPERLY CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM. 4 THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE ENT IRE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 69B OF T HE I.T. ACT WHEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE NOT REJECTED . 5 EVEN ON FACTS, THE LEARNED CIT (A) FAILED TO CONS IDER THAT A PART OF THE COST OF THE BUILDING WAS INCURRE D BY GOLDAGE HOSPITALS PVT.LTD., THE TENANT AND THE SAID FACT IS EVIDENCED BY THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE COMPA NY. 6 THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THE INTERIORS, THE COST OF SOLAR SYSTEM, KITCHEN EQUIPM ENT, GENERATOR, ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT ETC. ARE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF THE COMPANY AND THE TOTAL COST INCURRED BY THE COMPANY IN CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN DIRECTED TO BE REDUCED FO R ARRIVING AT THE COST INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT. 7) THE CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THE TENANT INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF RS.1,45,31,603J-. THE LEARN ED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT GOLD AGE HOSPITALS PVT.LTD., IS THE TENANT AND SPENT THE AMO UNT OFRS.1,45,31,603J- AND THAT THE ITEMS ACQUIRED BY T HE TENANT WERE CONSIDERED BY THE VALUATION CELL FOR DETERMINING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION 8) THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED OF RS.80,00,000/- AND TREATED THE SAME AS PART OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION ADMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. 9) THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT IF T HE DEDUCTION TOWARDS SELF SUPERVISION; DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CPWD RATES AND STATE GOVERNMENT RATES; THE AMOUNT ADMITTED OF RS.80,00,000 J - AND THE AMOUNTS SPENT BY THE TENANT WERE CONSIDERED THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY ADDITION TO THE INCOME ADMITTED AND, THEREFO RE, ITA NOS 1039 1040 AND 1216 OF 2016 TUM MALA VEENA AND OTHERS. PAGE 3 OF 4 THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE. 10) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ARR IVE AT THE DIFFERENCE AND DISTRIBUTE SUCH DIFFERENCE AM ONG ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN PROPORTION TO THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED. 11) THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED TH E FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A MISTAKE IN ARRIVING AT THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.67,38,990/-FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 12) ANY OTHER GROUND OR GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED A T THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED DET AILED OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE CIT (A) AND THE CIT (A) REPRO DUCED THE SAME IN HIS ORDER AND THEREAFTER, CONFIRMED THE ASSESSME NT ORDER. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEES ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US . 3. THE LEARNED DR WAS ALSO HEARD. 4. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A), WE FIND THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAVE FILED DETAILED OBJECT IONS ON EACH OF THE ISSUES BEFORE THE CIT (A), BUT HE HAS FAILED TO DISPOSE OF THE SAID OBJECTIONS BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER AND THER EFORE, WE DO NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE REASONINGS GIVEN BY THE CIT (A) FOR ADJUDICATING THE ISSUES RAISED BY BOTH THE ASSESSEE S. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO SET ASIDE TH E ORDERS OF THE CIT (A) AND REMAND THE ISSUE TO HIS FILE FOR RECONS IDERATION AND DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS BY WAY OF A SPEAKI NG ORDER. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE GIVE N A FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NOS 1039 1040 AND 1216 OF 2016 TUM MALA VEENA AND OTHERS. PAGE 4 OF 4 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH NOVEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 9 TH NOVEMBER, 2018. VINODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1 SHRI S.RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO.102, SHRIYA'S ELEGANCE, 3-6- 643, STREET NO.9, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD 500029 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2) SIGNATURE TOWERS, KO NDAPUR, HYDERABAD 3 CIT (A)-2 HYDERABAD 4 PR. CIT 2 HYDERABAD 5 THE DR, ITAT HYDERABAD 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER