I.T.O, Ward -10(2), Hyderabad V. M/s Sreemukh Developeres, Secunderabad

ITA 1516/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1341 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMISHA S GUPT
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1514/HYD/2012 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ITA NO.1515/HYD/2012 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ITA NO.1516/HYD/2012 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(2), HYDERABAD. V/S M/S. SREEMUKH DEVELOPERS HYDERABAD (PAN ABCFS 0333 F ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MS. AMISHA S.GUPT DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.RAMA RAO DATE OF HEARING 17.01.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22 . 02.201 3 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE THREE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AG AINST A COMMON ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPE ALS) VI HYDERABAD DATED 13.7.2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 TO 2007- 08. SINCE A COMMON ISSUE IS INVOLVED, ALL THESE AP PEALS ARE BEING DISPOSED OF TOGETHER BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE S AKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE, COMMON IN THESE A PPEALS, READ AS FOLLOWS- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS B OTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTI ON U/S. 80IB OF THE I.T. ACT BASING ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT, WITH REGARD TO REGULARIS ATION OF ADDITIONAL BUILT UP AREA, WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN TERMS OF RULE 46A OF I.T. RULES, 1962. ITA NO.1514-1516 /HYD/12 M/S. SREEMUKH DEVELOPERS HYDERA BAD 2 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE EITHER THE CLAIM OF TH E FRESH EVIDENCE, IF ANY, PRODUCED BEFORE HIM/HER BY THE AP PELLANT. 4. .... 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND OTHER MATERIA L AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE FAIRL Y SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ADMITTED CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, AN D DECIDED THE APPEAL BASED ON SUCH EVIDENCE, WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUN ITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE SUCH EVIDENCE AND OFFER HIS COMM ENTS THEREON. BEING SO, THERE IS CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF R ULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE SET ASI DE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A), AND RESTORE THE ENTIRE ISSUE IN DISP UTE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS, WITH A D IRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IN QUESTI ON FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE CIT(A), AND ALSO ANY OTHER FURTHER EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY PRODUCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIR ECTED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH, BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE RE VENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 22 .02.2013 S D/ - (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN ) SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI) JUDICIAL MEMBER. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. DT/- 22 ND FEBRUARY, 2013 ITA NO.1514-1516 /HYD/12 M/S. SREEMUKH DEVELOPERS HYDERA BAD 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. SREEMUKH DEVELOPERS, POLOT NO.14 & 15, DIAMOND POINT, SIKH VILLAGE, SECUNDERABAD 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 10(2) , HYDERABAD 3. 4. 5. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) VI, HYDERABAD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V, HYDERABAD THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT HYDERABAD B.V.S.