IIC Technologies Pvt.Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 550/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6388 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G V HEMALATHA
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.550/HYD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 M/S. IIC TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD., HYDERABAD. PAN AAACI4582L VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1) HYDERABAD 4. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : MR. A.V. RAGHURAM FOR REVENUE : SMT. G.V. HEMALATHA DATE OF HEARING : 18.08.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.08.2016 ORDER PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSE E COMPANY AND DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY PR. CIT-II, HYDERABAD. AS COULD BE NOTICED FROM THE ORDER OF THE P RINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, THIS WAS CAPTIONED AS ORDER PASSED UN DER SECTION 263 READ WITH SECTION 254 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL ON THE GROUND TH AT INVOKING OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 ARE UNSUSTAINAB LE SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUES CONSIDERED IN THE REVISIONAL PROCEEDINGS AND HAD TAKEN ONE OF THE POSSI BLE VIEW IN THE MATTER. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE, THROUGH ITS COUNSEL, HAS NOT FILED ANY PAPER BOOK/DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE STAND TAKEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. LEARNED C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, HAS FILED A LETTER DULY SINGED BY M R. A. RAJESH, 2 ITA.NO.550/HYD/2016 M/S. IIC TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD., HYDERABAD. MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY (BY WRONGLY MENTIONING IT AS HAVING BEEN SIGNED ON 19.08.2016 THOU GH THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN-UP AND HEARD ON 18.08.2016) WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY SEEKS PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW ITS APP EAL ON THE FOLLOWING REASONS : THE APPELLANT HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL CHALLEN GING THE ORDER OF PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABA D PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1. THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER AND THE ELIGIBLE REFUND. HOWEVER, THE MANAGEMENT OF THE APP ELLANT HAS DECIDED NOT TO PURSUE THE APPEAL AS THE SAME IS TAX NEUTRAL SO FAR AS THE APPELLANT IS CONCERNED. 3. LD. D.R. HAS NO OBJECTION IN THIS REGARD. 4. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE PERMIT THE ASSESSEE TO WITHDRAW ITS APPEAL AND DISMISS THE APPEAL ACCORDINGL Y, AS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH AUGUST, 2016. SD/- SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) (D. MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT HYDERABAD, DATED 18 TH AUGUST, 2016 VBP/- COPY TO 1. M/S. IIC TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD., HYDERABAD. C/O. MR. K. VASANTKUMAR & MR. A.V. RAGHURAM, ADVOCAT ES, 610, BABUKHAN ESTATE, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD 1. 2. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1), 8 TH FLOOR, I.T. TOWERS, A.C. GUARDS, HYDERABAD 4. 3. PR. CIT-II, HYDERABAD. 4. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-2, HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT B BENCH, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE