Ravinder Reddy Gaddam Raja , Hyderabad V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax , Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

ITA 600/Hyd/2020

AI Insights

The case involves Sri Ravinder Reddy Gaddam Raja, the appellant, who contested the refusal of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to entertain his appeal due to alleged non-payment of self-assessment tax for the assessment year 2009-10. The appellant argued that he was entitled to adjust refunds from other assessment years against the tax demand for 2009-10, which should allow his appeal to be considered. The Tribunal examined the correspondence and refund details provided by the appellant and concluded that the refunds due from the other years were sufficient to cover the tax demand for 2009-10, thus setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and restoring the appeal for further consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 133193 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-08-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-08-2023
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 02-11-2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 600/Hyd/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sri Ravinder Reddy Gaddam Raja, Hyderabad [PAN No. AGTPG0143P] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती‍द्वधरध / Assessee by: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani, AR रधजस्‍व‍द्वधरध / Revenue by: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR स ु िवधई‍की‍तधरीख/Date of hearing: 09/08/2023 घोर्णध की‍तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 17/08/2023 आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the order dated 18/09/2020 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Sri Ravinder Reddy Gaddam Raja (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2009-10, assessee preferred this appeal. 2. At the outset, learned AR submitted that as against the assessment order dated 31/03/2013 for the assessment year 2009-10, assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A), but the learned CIT(A) raised objection that the assessee did not pay the taxes due on the self- assessment, and, therefore, in accordance with section 249(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), no appeal could be entertained. ITA No. 600/Hyd/2020 Page 2 of 4 According to the learned AR, a refund was due to the assessee for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2010-11 of an amount more than the demand for the assessment year 2009-10 and, therefore, the learned CIT(A) was incorrect in refusing to adjudicate the appeal and dismissing the same. 3. Learned AR further submitted that the letters dated 26/06/2023, 27/01/2022 and 19/05/2023 establish the fact that a sum of Rs. 42,12,045/- is due to the assessee from the department by way of refunds for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2010-11 and which are available for adjustment towards tax for the assessment year 2009-10. He filed the copies of the letters referred to by him and they form part of record. 4. Learned DR submitted that under section 249(4) of the Act, no appeal shall be admitted unless the assessee has paid the taxes due on the income returned by him, at the time of filing of the appeal itself before the learned CIT(A) but since no refund was due to the assessee to be adjusted for the assessment year 2009-10, as evidenced by the report dated 16/08/2019 submitted by the learned Assessing Officer, refusal to entertain the appeal by the learned CIT(A) is justified. Learned DR, however, does not dispute the correctness of the letters, copies of which are filed by the assessee. 5. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. Assessee claimed before the learned CIT(A) that there was a refund of Rs. 40,10,795/- in assessment year 2008-09 and Rs. 7,18,202/- in assessment year 2010-11 due to the assessee and adjustment of these funds as against the demand for assessment year 2009-10 would result in net refund and, therefore, there was sufficient compliance with the provisions of section 249(4) of the Act. The letters referred to by the learned AR also clearly establish that for the assessment year 2008-09 and 2010-11 a sum of Rs. 34,95,510/- and Rs. 7,16,535/- ITA No. 600/Hyd/2020 Page 3 of 4 were found due to be refunded to the assessee and for that matter, it is clear by the letter dated 19/05/2023 that the sooner the approval of JCIT is received, such amounts will be submitted to CPC for adjustment of the demand for the assessment year 2009-10. 6. Learned CIT(A) in his order found that the taxes due as per the return of income filed by the assessee are to the tune of Rs. 34,73,230/- for the assessment year 2009-10. The amount of refund available to the assessee is Rs. 42,12,045/- which is more than the tax to be paid. Appeal before the learned CIT(A) was preferred as on 29/04/2013 and report of the learned Assessing Officer stating that no refunds were available for adjustment was as on 16/08/2019. However, by order dated 04/10/2021, the earlier order dated 31/03/2013 under section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2008-09 was modified to determine the refund to the tune of Rs. 34,95,510/-. Hence, it is but natural for the learned CIT(A) to return a finding as he had given in the impugned order. However, the subsequent events justify the claim of the assessee. 7. We, therefore, are of the opinion that in the changed circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained and in view of the availability of refunds for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2010-11, the assessee’s request to set aside the impugned order and to restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits is justified. Hence, we set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) for considering the appeal on merits. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this the 17 th day of August, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (RAMA KANTA PANDA) (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 17/08/2023 TNMM ITA No. 600/Hyd/2020 Page 4 of 4 Copy forwarded to: 1. Sri Ravinder Reddy Gaddam Raja, #303, Himashiva Apartment, Shivam Road, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad. 3. Pr.CIT(Central), Hyderabad. 4. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 5. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, HYDERABAD