ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Hyd, Hyderabad V. Indrani Prasad, New Delhi, New Delhi

ITA 1135/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5993 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 26-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A SITARAMA RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: P MURALI MOHAN RAO
• Section: 143(3); 260A; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.1135/HYD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD. VS. SMT. INDRANI PRASAD NEW DELHI 110 021. PAN AANPI5218K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR REVENUE : MR. A. SITARAMA RAO FOR ASSESSEE : MR. P. MURALI MOHAN RAO DATE OF HEARING : 23.11.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.11.2016 ORDER PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-11, HYDERABAD AND IT PERTAINS TO THE A.Y. 2010-2011. THE ONLY GROUND URGED BY THE REVENUE READ S AS UNDER : WHETHER FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE C IT(A) WAS CORRECT IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 263 AND TREATING IT AS INFRUCTUOUS, WHEN REVENUE HAS PREFER RED AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 260A BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH C OURT AGAINST THE ORDER OF HONBLE ITAT. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT MAY BE STATED THAT THE ORIGINAL ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CALLED FOR BY THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY, IN EXERCISE OF POWERS VESTED IN HIM UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, WHEREIN HE OBSERVED THAT THE ORDER PASSED B Y THE 2 ITA.NO.1135/HYD/2016 SMT. INDRANI PRASAD, NEW DELHI. ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO TH E INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT, HYDERABAD AND TH E A BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 29.01.2016 (ITA.NO.904/HYD/2014) QUASHED THE ORDER OF THE REVISI ONAL AUTHORITY. 4. AS THE THINGS STOOD THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, W HILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. CIT COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY DETERMINING THE INCOME AT RS.27.25 CRORE S AS AGAINST RS.23.35 LAKHS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON A N APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWED THE DEC ISION OF THE ITAT AND OBSERVED AS UNDER : 6. ON A PERUSAL OF THE SAID ORDER OF THE ITAT IN THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER IT IS SEEN THAT THE CLAIM OF THE LD. AR IS CORRECT. THE IT AT IN DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE AGAINST ORDER U/S.263 FOR A.Y.2010-11 RELIED UPON A DECISION IN THE CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE FOR A.Y.2009-10 VI DE ITS COMMON ORDER DATED 20.01.2016 IN THE CASE OF MR. SY ED RAFIUDDIN AND OTHERS (INCLUDING THIS ASSESSEE) VIDE ITA NO.901/H/2014. IN DECIDING THIS ORDER DATED 20.01.2 016, THE ITAT RELIED UPON ITS EARLIER ORDER DATED 13.11. 2015 IN THE CASE OF M/S. AASHI PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES LTD. VIDE ITA NO.1041 TO 1045/H/2014. THIS ORDER IN TURN FOLLOWS A DECISI ON IN THE CASE OF DHARMENDRA KUMAR BANSAL (2014) 48 TAXMANN.C OM 53 (JAIPUR-TRIB) TO THE EFFECT THAT AN ORDER OF REV ISION MADE ON A REFERENCE RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LIABLE TO BE SEEN AS AN ORDER PASSED AT THE BEHEST OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, AND NOT UPON INDEPENDENT APPLICATION OF MI ND BY THE CIT. NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE MATTER IS FU RTHER CONTESTED, IT REMAINS THAT THE ORDER OF THE ITAT RE LIED UPON BY THE LD. AR CURRENTLY HOLDS THE FIELD. IT FOLLOWS, T HEREFORE, THAT ANY ORDER IN FURTHERANCE OF AN ORDER HELD TO BE UNS USTAINABLE BY THE ITAT HAS TO FAIL. THE EFFECT OF THIS WOULD B E THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.9,02,02,245/- IS DELETED AND THE STA TUS OF 3 ITA.NO.1135/HYD/2016 SMT. INDRANI PRASAD, NEW DELHI. INCOME DETERMINED U/S.143(3) R.W.S.154 DT.31.12.201 2 AMOUNTING TO RS.18,23,35,910/- REVERTS BACK TO A PR OTECTIVE ASSESSMENT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER DATED 27.05.2016 OF THE CIT(A) , THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. D.R. AS WELL AS THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ORDER OF THE ITAT A BENCH, HYDERABAD (ITA.NO.904/HYD/2014) HAS NOT BEEN SET ASIDE OR OVERR ULED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. SINCE THE ORDER OF THE RE VISIONAL AUTHORITY WAS QUASHED BY THE ITAT, THE CITS ORDER CAN NOT BE SAID TO HAVE AN EFFECT AND CONSEQUENTLY THE CONSEQUEN TIAL ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT STAND. SINCE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TAKEN A VIEW ON THE SAME LINES, BY RESPECT FULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE ITAT (SUPRA), WE DO NOT FIN D ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THEREFORE, AS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.11.2016. SD/- SD/- (B.RAMAKOTAIAH) (D.MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT HYDERABAD, DATED 23 RD NOVEMBER, 2016. VBP/- COPY TO 1. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(1), 7 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD 500 004. 2. SMT. INDRANI PRASAD, 2 ND FLOOR, 6/10, SHANTI NIKETAN, NEW DELHI 110 021. 3. CIT(A) - 11 , HYDERABAD. 4. PR. CIT ( CENTRAL ), HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT A BENCH, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.