Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(1), Hyderabad V. Lanco Hills Technology Park Private Limited, Hyderabad

MA 111/Hyd/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3090 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-08-2022
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2021
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y.V.S.T. SAI

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ म IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER िव.आवे.सं / M.A. No. 111/Hyd/2021 (Arising out of ITA No. 1126/Hyd/2018) (िनधा रण वष / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(1), Hyderabad Vs Lanco Hills Technology Park Private Limited, Hyderabad [PAN : AABCL1228R] (आवेदक / Applicant) ( यथ / Respondent) िनधा रती ारा / Assessee by: Shri M.V.Joshi, AR राज व ारा / Revenue by: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR सु नवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 26/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement on: 26/08/2022 आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM: By way of this miscellaneous application, Revenue prays the rectification mistake that had crept in the common order dated 07/09/2021 passed in ITA No. 1125 & 1126/Hyd/2018 for assessment years 2007-08 & 2011-12. M.A.No. 111/Hyd/2021 Page 2 of 3 2. At the outset, learned DR submitted that in paragraph No. 12, it was recorded that the Revenue did not dispute the claim of the assessee as to the presence of on-money element in this case. He submitted that, as a matter of fact, Revenue did not give any such concession and on the other hand, the Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chainrup Sampathram Vs. CIT (1953) 24 ITR 481 (SC), to grant relief to the assessee on this aspect. He, therefore, prayed that this observation which has crept in, in the common order may be omitted. 3. Learned AR on the other hand fairly conceded the mistake apparent on the face of record and reported no objection for deleting the same. 4. Recording the same, we rectify the mistake that is crept in, in the common order. The portion of the paragraph No. 12 of the order, which reads, - “We wish to emphasise that the Revenue is fair enough in not having disputed the assessee’s claim in principle. Or that the same contained any “on money” element, as well” shall stand omitted. 5. In the result, this MA is allowed, accordingly. Order pronounced in the open court on this the 26 th day of August, 2022 Sd/- Sd/- (RAMA KANTA PANDA) (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 26/08/2022 TNMM M.A.No. 111/Hyd/2021 Page 3 of 3 Copy forwarded to: 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(1), Hyderabad. 2. Lanco Hills Technology Park Private Limited, C/o. P. Murali & Co., Chartered Accountants, 6-3-655/2/3, 1 st Floor, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 3. CIT(Appeals)-4, Hyderabad. 4. Pr.CIT-4, Hyderabad. 5. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, HYDERABAD