ACIT, Circle-10(1)., Hyderabad V. M/s. Elite Engineers & Fabricators, Secunderabad

ITA 1152/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 53640 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 15-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B V PRASAD REDDY
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I .T.A. NO. 1152/HYD/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 ASST. CIT CIRCLE 10(1) HYDERABAD. VS. M/S. ELITE ENGINEERS & FABRICATORS, HYDERABAD PAN: AACFE2772M APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI B.V. PRASAD REDDY RESPONDENT BY: NONE DATE OF HEARING: 03.10.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 03.10.2011 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-VI, HYDERABAD DATED 31.3.2011 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE REVENUE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPE AL: A) THE CIT(A) ERRED IN BOTH LAW AND FACTS OF THE CA SE. B) THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFI CER TO GO THROUGH THE PARTICULARS OF PAYMENTS MADE AND TDS DEDUCTED WHICH WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A). C) THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFI CER TO GO THROUGH THE BILLS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE T HE CIT(A) AND ALLOW THE DEPRECIATION. D) THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN AS MUCH AS THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (A) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 251 OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT, 1961. E) THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER RULE 46A OF TH E INCOME-TAX RULES IN RESPECT OF FRESH EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A). 3. NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE. WE PROCEED TO DECI DE THE APPEAL AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR. I.T.A. NO. 1152/HYD/2011 M/S. ELITE ENGINEERS & FABRICATORS ========================== 2 4. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAD ADMITT ED CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF IN COME-TAX RULES, 1962. 5. AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR, WE ARE OF THE OPIN ION THAT THE CIT(A) ADMITTED SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES LIKE STATEMENT S HOWING THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO VARIOUS PARTIES TOW ARDS LABOUR CHARGES, BILLS IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONS MADE TO THE PLANT AND MACHINERY DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND EXTRACT OF DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE MADE TOWARDS ADDITIONS TO THE BUILDING. THESE DOCU MENTS REQUIRE TO BE VERIFIED AT THE END OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCO RDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND THE ENTIRE MATTER INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 RD OCTOBER, 2011. SD/ - (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 3 RD OCTOBER, 2011 TPRAO COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), ROOM NO. 515, A.C. GUARD S, I.T. TOWERS, HYDERABAD. 2. M/S. ELITE ENGINEER & FABRICATORS, PLOT NO. 70, APIIC, INDUSTRIAL ESTATES, MOULALI, SECUNDERABAD. 3. THE CIT(A)-VI, HYDERABAD. 4. THE CIT-V, HYDERABAD. 5. THE DR B BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD