Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax , Circle-1(2), Hyderabad V. Candid Industries Limited (Formerly known as M/s Futuretech Industries Limited), Hyderabad

MA 12/Hyd/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6545 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-06-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-05-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2022
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P MURALI MOHAN RAO

Judgement Text

MA Nos 12 and 17 of 2022 Candid Industries Ltd Page 1 of 4 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member AND Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member M.A. Nos. 12 & 17/Hyd/2022 आ.अपी.सं /ITA Nos.1525/Hyd/2018 & ITA 1205/Hyd/2017) (िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2011-12) Dy. CIT Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Vs. Candid Industries Ltd (formerly known as Futuretech Industries Ltd) Hyderabad PAN:AAACE4493Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CA राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 17/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/ORDER Per Laliet Kumar, J.M These Miscellaneous Applications are filed by the Revenue feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the A.Ys 2012-13 & 2011-12 respectively. 2. It is the contention of the learned DR that while passing the order, the Tribunal though has relied upon the order passed by the Coordinate Bench for the A.Y 2007-08, however, MA Nos 12 and 17 of 2022 Candid Industries Ltd Page 2 of 4 while deciding the appeal, instead of remitting back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification, the Tribunal has inadvertently deleted the addition. 3. Per contra, the learned AR, on the other hand, submitted that there is no error in the order passed by the Tribunal and no modification is required to be passed by the Tribunal. It was submitted that the Tribunal while recording the submission of the DR in para 6 for the A.Y 2011-12 mentioned that the DR has not disputed the consequential computation made by the Assessing Officer for the A.Y 2007-08 and Assessing Officer accepted the financial charges claimed by the assessee. In those facts, the Tribunal has deleted the addition for the A.Y 2011-12. 4. We have heard the rival arguments and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, in para 5 of the order of the Tribunal, it is mentioned that the issue is no more “res integra” and for that purpose, the Tribunal has relied upon the order passed in the case of the assessee for the A.Ys 2006-07 and 2007-08. 5. As it is clear from the decision of the Tribunal for the A.Y 2006-07 and 2007-08 in those two years, the Tribunal has remanded back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to examine the aspects of financial charges. MA Nos 12 and 17 of 2022 Candid Industries Ltd Page 3 of 4 6. It is different issue that in the order giving effect, the Assessing Officer has justified the claim of the assessee and deleted the financial charges. However, as the Tribunal in the impugned order before us had relied upon the order for the A.Ys 2006-07 and 2007-08, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that similar direction were required to be issued by the Tribunal for the A.Ys under consideration. In the light of the above, we amend the para 6 of the Tribunal’s order, which is now to be read as under: “6. Learned departmental representative fails to dispute that the Assessing Officer's consequential computation dt.29-12- 2017 in said AY.2007-08 has duly accepted the assessee's identical financial charges claim. There is no distinction on facts forthcoming in the case file. We thus follow the judicial consistency in these facts and circumstances and issue similar direction to the Assessing Officer as issued for A.Y 2007-08 and direct the Assessing Officer to examine the case. Hence the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.” 7. In the result, as we amend the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, therefore, the M.As filed by the Revenue are allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 12 th June, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (MANJUNATHA, G) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (LALIET KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 12 th June, 2024 Vinodan/SPS MA Nos 12 and 17 of 2022 Candid Industries Ltd Page 4 of 4 Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Dy.CIT, Circle 1(2) Hyderabad 2 Candid Industries Ltd, C/o P Murali & Co. CAs, 6-3-655/2/3 Somajiguda, Hyderabad 500082 3 Pr. CIT -1, Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order