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

ITA 741/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6098 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Capital expenditure; TDS
• Section: 143(3); 40(a)(ia); 37(1); 201(1); 201

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.741/Hyd/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nama Investments Limited, Hyderabad. PAN: AACCM 1229 Q Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue by: Sri Subbaraju Penmetsa Sr. AR Date of hearing: 15/12/2021 Date of pronouncement: 20/12/2021 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT (A)-12, Hyderabad in appeal No.0174/2015-16, dated 16/08/2017 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the AY 2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised nine grounds in its appeal, and they are extracted herein below for reference: “1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred both on facts and in law by upholding the assessment order to the extent that it is prejudicial to the interest of appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal without fairly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons for making addition by disallowing in the assessment order. 2 3. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of an amount of Rs. 2,83,12,571/- U/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act without properly applying the legal precedents on the issue. 4. The ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that AO erred in making disallowance by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) without treating the assessee as an assessee in default U/s. 201(1) and without initiating any proceedings U/s. 201 of the Act. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of an expenditure claimed for an amount of Rs. 20,67,158/- towards interest on TDS without appreciating the submissions of the assessee. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact that interest on TDS is wholly and exclusively incurred for business purpose, which is not a capital expenditure or penal in nature or personal in nature. 7. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that interest on TDS is allowable U/s. 37(1) of the Act as it is compensatory in nature and not penal in nature. 8. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have held that the AO had erred in initiating penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1) of the Act. 9. The appellant may add or alter or amend or modify or substitute or delete and or / rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before us that the assessee has filed additional evidence before the Tribunal as the assessee was able to obtain proper evidence in support of its case only now. The Ld. AR further submitted that the additional evidence submitted by the assessee relates to the substantial additions made by the Ld. AO which was further sustained by the ld. CIT (A). It was further submitted that due to several constraints the assessee was unable to furnish the same before the Ld. Revenue Authorities on the earlier instances. It was therefore pleaded that one more opportunity may be provided to 3 the assessee in order to avoid miscarriage of the justice otherwise it would bring irreparable loss to the assessee. 4. The Ld. DR on the other hand, vehemently argued for sustaining the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities since the Ld. Revenue Authorities had provided proper opportunity to the assessee of being heard. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. On perusing the order of the Ld. Revenue Authorities, We find that the assessee has not furnished sufficient evidence before them to substantiate its claim and therefore, the Ld.Revenue Authorities had no other option but to make substantial additions in the hands of the assessee. This lapse on the part of the assessee is not appreciable. However, since now the assessee has furnished some fresh evidence before the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, We hereby remit the entire matter back to the file of the ld. AO for de-novo consideration with direction to admit and examine the additional evidence and any other evidence filed by the assessee before the Ld.AO for the first time and thereafter pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merit. We also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate before the Ld. Revenue Authorities failing which they shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order based on the materials on record. 4 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove. Pronounced in the open Court on the 20 th December, 2021. Sd/- Sd/- (S.S. GODARA) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 20 th December, 2021 OKK Copy to:- 1) M/s. Nama Investments Limited C/o. P. Murali & Co., Chartered Accountants, 6-3-655/2/3, Somajiguda, Hyderabad – 500 082. 2) The DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad. 3) The CIT(A)-12, Hyderabad. 4) The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Hyderabad. 5) The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 6) Guard File