BSCPL Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax , Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1534/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1566 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revised return; TDS
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES : BENCH A HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE ) BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1533 & 1534 /HYD/2018 A.Y. 20 09 - 10 & 2010 - 11 M/S BSCPL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED HYDERABAD [PAN: AA ACB8316K ] VS. DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 ( 3 ) / DY.CIT, C.C.1(2) HYDERABD ( APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: NONE REVENUE BY : SRI SUNIL KUMAR PANDEY, DR DATE OF HEARING: 2 7 /01/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15 /02/2021 ORDER PER BENCH TH E ASSESSEES APPEAL S FOR A.Y.20 09 - 10 AND 2010 - 11 ARISE S FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1 [CIT(A)], HYDERABADS SEPARATE ORDER S DATED 30.05.2018 AD 23.03.2018 PASSED IN CASE NO. 0 324 /CIT(A) - 1/HYD/2016 - 17/2018 - 19 AND CASE NO.0285/CIT(A) - 1/HYD/2016 - 17/2017 - 18, INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A AND SEC. 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [IN SHORT THE ACT] ; RESPECTIVELY. ITA 1 533 & 1534 /HYD/18 AY 20 09 - 10 & 2010 - 11 M/S BSCPL INFRASTRUCTURE .LTD. 2 CASES CALLED TWICE. NONE APPEARED AT ASSESSEES BEHEST. IT IS ACCORDINGLY PROCEEDED EX - PARTE. HEARD SRI SUNIL KUMAR PANDEY, D.R. ON BEHALF OF REVENUE. CASE FILE S PERUSED. 2. IT EMERGES FROM PERUSAL OF THE CASE FILE THAT ASSESSEES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE RAISED HEREIN CHALLENGES THE CORRECTNESS OF BOTH LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTION ADDING INTEREST INCOME OF RS . 55,52,292/ - ON ACCOUNT OF THE ALLEGED MIS - MATCH BETWEEN THE FIGURES AS PER FORM 26 AS VIS - - VIS THOSE ACTUALLY CREDITED/ RECEIVED IN THE RELEVANT P REVIOUS YEAR . SUFFICE TO SAY, THE A SSESSING OF FICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) HAVE ADDED THE SAID INTEREST INCOME WH EREAS THE ASSESSEES CASE IS THAT IT HAS DULY DISCLOSED INTEREST INCOME , WHATEVER ACCRUED OR RECEIVED , GOING BY REGULAR METHOD OF ITS BOOK KEEPING. 3. L EARNED D EPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE FAILS TO REBUT THE CLINCHING FACT THAT THE ABOVE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVE D HEREIN IS THAT OF RECONCILIATION OF THE ASSESSEES INTEREST IN ISSUE ONLY THAN A SUBSTANTIAL D I SPUTE. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIVIL WRIT PETITION 2659/2012 ON ITS OWN IN MOTION VS UNI ON OF INDIA AND OTHERS DATED 14.3.2013 HAS ALREADY ISSUED ELABORATE DIRECTIONS TO THE DEPARTMENT REGARDING SUCH A VARIA NCE IN THE INTEREST AMOUNT AS PER F ORM 26 AS VIS - - VIS THAT CREDITED/RECEIVED. WE THEREFORE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO CIT(A) FOR RECONC ILIATION OF FIGURES AND VERIF ICATION OF ASSESSEES BOOKS WITHIN THREE EFFECTIVE HEARINGS. TH E ASSESSEES FORMER APPEAL ITA 1533/HYD/2018 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN ABOVE TERMS. 4. N EXT WE COME TO ASSESSEES LATTER APPEAL ITA 1534/HYD/20 18. 4.1. IT IS NOTICED AT THE OUTSET THAT THERE IS DELAY OF 12 DAYS IN FILING OF THIS APPEAL . THE ASSESSEE HA S SUBMITTED ITS PETITION PRAYING FOR CONDONATION STATING THAT ITS MD WAS OUT OF STATION AND THE DELAY IS NEITHER INTENTIONAL NOR ITA 1 533 & 1534 /HYD/18 AY 20 09 - 10 & 2010 - 11 M/S BSCPL INFRASTRUCTURE .LTD. 3 DELIBER ATE. W E CONDONE THE ABOVE DELAY OF 12 DAYS KEEPING IN MIND ALL THESE AVERMENTS. 4. 2 . A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICERS SEC.154 ORDER DATED 16.5.2016 INDICATES THAT HE HAD FRAMED HIS REGULAR ASSESSMENT I N ISSUE DATED 30.12.201 1 FOLLOWED BY FIRST ROUND OF RECTIFICATION DATED 22.06.2013. THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER SOUGHT FOR YET ANOTHER REC TIFICATION ON THE ISSUES OF TDS OF RS.10, 90,8 61/ - AND ERRONEOUS CONSIDERATION OF TAX AND FRINGE BENEFIT TAX RE FUND (S) OF RS. 53,14,925/ - ; CHARGED TO TAX. THE ASSESSING OFFICER QUOTED GOETZ (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) HOLDING THAT THE SAID CLAIM (S) HAD NOT BEEN MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED BY HIM THAN BY FILING A REVISED RETURN. MR. PANDEY FAIL S TO DISPUTE THAT THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE MADE CLEAR IN PARA 4 THAT THE SAID CASE LAW DOES NOT DEAL WITH THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY S JUR ISDICTION ENTERTAINING A NEW ARGUMENT EVEN IN ABSENCE OF A REVISED RETURN. H ONBLE APEX COURT CLARIFIED IN OTHER WORDS THAT SUCH AN APPELLATE JURISDICTION IS IN NO WAY IMPINGED UPON IN ANY MANNER. WE OBSERVE SINCE THE TWIN ISSUES HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED IN REGULAR ASSESSMENT , ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL R ECONSIDER THE SAME AFRESH AS PER LAW WITHIN THREE EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITIES OF HEARING. ASSESSEES LATTER APPEAL IN ITA 1534/HYD/18 IS ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES IN ABOVE TERMS. BOTH THESE ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN ABOVE TERMS. A COPY OF THIS COMMON ORDER BE PLACED IN THE RESPECTIVE CASE FILES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 15 /02/2021. SD/ - SD/ - (L.P. SAHU) (S.S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: THE 15 TH FEBRUARY, 2021. * GMV ITA 1 533 & 1534 /HYD/18 AY 20 09 - 10 & 2010 - 11 M/S BSCPL INFRASTRUCTURE .LTD. 4 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S BSCPL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. C/O M/S ANJANEYULU & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 30, BHAGYALAKSHMI NAGAR, GANDHI NAGAR, HYDERABAD 500 020 , TELANGANA. 2. DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1( 2 ), HYDERABAD, TELANGANA 3. ACIT, RANGE 1, HYDERABAD 4. CIT(A) - 1 , HYDERABAD. 5. P R.CIT - 1 , HYDERABAD 6. DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD. 7. GUARD FILE.