Dy.CIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad V. Maheshwari Mega Ventures Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 366/Hyd/2013

AI Insights

The case involves Maheshwari Mega Ventures Ltd., which appealed against the orders of the Assessing Officer (AO) and the learned CIT (A). The primary contention was regarding the examination of documents and the settlement relevance before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The ITAT found that the CIT (A) had not properly examined the documents and the settlement, nor the genuineness of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the assessee and the sellers dated 1st September 2006 and 28th February 2007. Consequently, the ITAT remanded the matter back to the CIT (A) for a thorough re-examination and a reasoned decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 128896 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 year(s) 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 20-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

ITA 366 of 2013 Maheshwari Mega Ventures Ltd Page 5 of 6 6. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the AO and the learned CIT (A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us by both sides. Undoubtedly, the reasoning reproduced herein above in Para 7.4, clearly shows that the learned CIT (A) had granted relief to the assessee on the basis of documents subsequently filed before him. In our view, the learned CIT (A) is duty bound to examine all the documents filed during the appellate proceedings in accordance with law, i.e. after affording the opportunity of being heard to the Assessing Officer. The same had not been done. Further, learned CIT (A) nor examined the settlement arrived between the assessee and others before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, its relevance and further failed to examine the genuineness of MOU entered between the assessee and the sellers, more particularly MOU dated 1 st September, 2006 and 28 th February 2007. For the above said reasons, we are in agreement with the submissions of the learned DR. As a sequel to the non-speaking cryptic order thereof, we deem it appropriate to remand back the matter to the file of the learned CIT (A) for fresh adjudication. With respect to the ground raised in Rule 27, ITAT Rules Application, we are of the view that this ground we are not deciding and keeping this legal ground open to be decided in appropriate case. However, since we are sending back the appeal of the Revenue back to the file of the learned CIT (A), therefore, we also direct the learned CIT (A) to decide again the grounds pertaining to reopening and pass reasoned speaking order after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. ITA 366 of 2013 Maheshwari Mega Ventures Ltd Page 6 of 6 7. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 19 th July, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (R.K. PANDA) VICE-PRESIDENT (LALIET KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 19 th July, 2023. Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 ACIT/Dy.CIT, Circle 16(2) 7 th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 2 M/s. Maheshwari Mega Ventures Ltd., 4-1-833, 3 rd Floor, MPM Mall, ABIDS, Hyderabad 3 CIT-IV, Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order