Vangipurapu Venkatsai Laxman, Hyderabad, Hyderabad V. ACIT,Circle-Circle-13(1) Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 1405/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2647 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: U MINICHANDRAN
• Keywords: Salary income
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

1 ITA.NO.1405/HYD/2016 SRI VANGIPURAPU VENKAT SAI LAXMAN, HYDERABAD. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.1405/HYD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008 SRI VANGIPURAPU VENKAT SAI LAXMAN, HYDERABAD. PAN ABLPV3680R VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-13(1) HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI K.C. DEVDAS FOR REVENUE : SMT. U. MINICHANDRAN DATE OF HEARING : 19.04.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.04.2017 ORDER PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-4, HYDERABAD. THE BRIEF FACTS GI VING RAISE TO ISSUE IN DISPUTE ARE AS UNDER. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A PROFESSIONAL CRICKETER BY VIR TUE OF WHICH HE IS ALSO EMPLOYED BY INDIAN AIRLINES THEREBY DERIV ING INCOME FROM SALARY AND OTHER SOURCES. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION, HE DECLARED TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1.12 CRORES WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. IN THE ORDER DATED 29.12.2009. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CIT, IN EXE RCISE OF HIS REVISIONAL POWERS, SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. TO VERIFY ALL THE ISSUES MENTIONED IN ITS ORDER AND TO RE-FRAME THE AS SESSMENT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED BEFORE US A COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THE ASSESSMENT 2 ITA.NO.1405/HYD/2016 SRI VANGIPURAPU VENKAT SAI LAXMAN, HYDERABAD. ORDER WAS MERELY SET ASIDE WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-DO TH E SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND NO SPECIFIC DIRECTION WAS GIV EN TO MAKE ANY SPECIFIC DISALLOWANCE. SINCE THE A.O. HAS PASSED AN ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT, IN THE EVENT OF DISPUTE WITH R EGARD TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. UNDER SECTI ON 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, ASSESSEE HAS TO PREFER AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY, AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BEF ORE THE CIT(A)-4, HYDERABAD. THE LD. CIT(A), IN A VERY CRYPTIC ORDER ( BEREFT OF REASONS) DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 2. AS PER THE HONBLE ITAT ORDER IN ITA.NO.1602/HY D/2014 DATED 05.07.2016 IN THE CASE OF M/S. MAHESHWARI MEG A VENTURES LTD., HELD THAT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT CIT(A) SHOULD NOT HAVE EXERCISED HIS APPELLATE POWERS ON AN ISSUE WHICH WA S SUBJECT MATTER OF CONSIDERATION BY THE CIT U/S.263. SINCE N O DISCRETION WAS ALLOWED TO A.O, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT CIT(A) S HOULD NOT HAVE INTERFERED WITH THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 3. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED BEFORE US A COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN ITA.NO.1602/HYD/2014 TO SUBMIT THAT THE DECISION WAS RE NDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON A DIFFERENT SET OF FACTS AND, IN PARTIC ULAR, OBSERVED THAT IN A GIVEN CASE WHERE THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY GIVES A SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO THE A.O, WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE DIRECTION OF THE CI T, THE A.O. IS LEFT WITH NO DISCRETION AND IN SUCH CASES, THE CIT(A) SHOU LD NOT INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE A.O; THE APPLICATION OF THE SAID JUDGMENT IS MISPLACED AND IT ONLY SHOWS CASUAL APPROACH OF THE CO MMISSIONER (APPEALS) THEREBY CAUSING LOT OF HARDSHIP TO THE ASSES SEE IN PREFERRING A FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR NO FAULT OF HIM . HE HAS SPECIFICALLY ADVERTED OUR ATTENTION TO THE DIRECTION OF THE REVISIONA L AUTHORITY IN THE 3 ITA.NO.1405/HYD/2016 SRI VANGIPURAPU VENKAT SAI LAXMAN, HYDERABAD. INSTANT CASE TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THE MATTER WAS LEFT OPEN TO TH E A.O. AND IN SUCH CASES A.O. IS ENTITLED TO TAKE AN INDEPENDENT VI EW AND IF AN ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY SUCH A DECISION OF THE A.O. A RIGHT IS VESTED IN ASSESSEE TO PREFER AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A), INTURN, IS DUTY BOUND TO DISPOSE OF THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE W ITH LAW. 4. WE HAVE ALSO HEARD THE LD. D.R. IN THIS REGARD AN D CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RECORD. 5. THERE ARE CATENA OF DECISIONS ON THE ISSUE AS TO THE POWERS OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IN A MATTER ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 263 OF T HE ACT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT TH AT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS MERELY SET ASIDE WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-FRAME THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. SUCH BEING THE CASE, THE CIT(A) I S DUTY BOUND TO DISPOSE OF THE MATTER ON MERITS RATHER THAN MECHANICALLY DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL R EFERRED TO THEREIN. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS EXERCISING A QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTION AND IN EXERCISE OF SUCH FUNCTION A CASUAL APPROACH IS NOT WARRANTED AND IT IS THE DUTY OF THE REVENUE TO MONITOR TH E APPROACH OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES INCLUDING THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORIT Y AND WHEREVER THEY FIND THAT THE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT ACTING AS PER LAW IT IS THEIR DUTY TO GIVE SUITABLE INSTRUCTIONS AS A MEASURE OF CORRECTIVE APPROACH. 5.1. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD TO PAY A SUM OF RS.10,000 TOWARDS INSTITUTION FEES ON ACCOUNT OF NON-S PEAKING ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A). HOWEVER, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE DID NOT HARBOUR MORE ON THE MONETARY LOSS TO THE ASSESSEE BU T MERELY MADE A HUMBLE MENTION THAT THE SET ASIDE MATTER SHOULD NOT BE P LACED BEFORE THE SAME COMMISSIONER. WE TAKE NOTE OF THE POINT THAT IS S OUGHT TO BE MADE OUT BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BUT LE AVE IT TO THE WISDOM OF THE REVENUE ON THIS ASPECT AND WE HEREBY, SE T ASIDE THE ORDER 4 ITA.NO.1405/HYD/2016 SRI VANGIPURAPU VENKAT SAI LAXMAN, HYDERABAD. PASSED BY THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE LD. CIT(A) TO RE-DO THE ASSESSMENT TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19.04. 2017. SD/- SD/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (D. MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT HYDERABAD, DATED 19 TH APRIL, 2017 VBP/- COPY TO 1. SRI VANGIPURAPU VENKAT SAI LAXMAN, FLAT NO.403, PL OT NO.116, SATYASAI PREM KUTIR APARTMENTS, 8-3-1103 & 8-3-1103/A, SRINAGAR COLONY, HYDERABAD. 2. ACIT, CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(A)-4, 2 ND FLOOR, A BLOCK, I.T. TOWERS, A.C. GUARDS, MASAB TANK, HYDERABAD 500 004. 4. PR. CIT-4, HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT B BENCH, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.