Walden Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

MA 12/Hyd/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Walden Properties (P) Ltd, which filed two Miscellaneous Applications (M.As) against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Hyderabad, concerning the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14. The applications sought rectification of errors in the Tribunal's common order dated 25.07.2022, which had not considered the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Singhad Technical Education Society. The Tribunal acknowledged the oversight and modified its earlier decision, directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine the cases in accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling and other relevant legal provisions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 129929 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 07-09-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2023
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Singhad Technical Education Society, PCIT vs. Sarvar Agencies (P) Ltd, CIT vs. RRJ Securities Ltd
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 254(2); 13; 153C

Judgement Text

MA Nos 11 and 12 of 2023 Walden Properties P Ltd Hyderabad Page 1 of 12 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-President AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Miscellaneous Application Nos.11 & 12/Hyd/2023 (Arising out of ITA Nos.643 & 644/Hyd/2017) Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Walden Properties (P) Ltd Hyderabad PAN:AAACW5473C Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Central Circle 2(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Adv Mohd. Afzal Revenue by: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR Date of hearing: 08/09/2023 Date of pronouncement: 25/09/2023 ORDER Per R.K. Panda, Vice-President The assessee through these two Miscellaneous Applications has requested the Tribunal to rectify certain errors that have crept into the common order dated 25.07.2022 in ITA Nos. 643 & 644/Hyd/2017 for the A.Y 2012-13 & 2013-14 respectively. MA No.11/Hyd/2023- A.Y 2012-13 2. The learned Counsel for the assessee at the outset drew the attention of the Bench to the M.A filed by the assessee, the contents of which read as under: MA Nos 11 and 12 of 2023 Walden Properties P Ltd Hyderabad Page 2 of 12 MA Nos 11 and 12 of 2023 Walden Properties P Ltd Hyderabad Page 3 of 12 MA Nos 11 and 12 of 2023 Walden Properties P Ltd Hyderabad Page 4 of 12 MA Nos 11 and 12 of 2023 Walden Properties P Ltd Hyderabad Page 5 of 12 2. Referring to the above, he submitted that the same is self-explanatory. He submitted that since the Tribunal while passing the order has not considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Singhad Technical Education Society (Supra), therefore, a mistake has crept in the order of the Tribunal for which the order passed by the Tribunal should be rectified or appropriate orders may be passed. 3. The learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that there is no error in the order of the Tribunal and the assessee through this M.A is requesting the Tribunal to rectify/recall the order which amounts to review of its own order by the Tribunal which is not permissible in law. MA Nos 11 and 12 of 2023 Walden Properties P Ltd Hyderabad Page 6 of 12 4. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the record. We have gone through the logbook and find that on the date of hearing on 21.7.2022, the learned Counsel for the assessee has specifically relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Singhad Technical Education Society (Supra) and had stated that the incriminating material seized has to pertain to the A.Y concerned for making any addition. Since the said decision has not been considered by the Tribunal, therefore, we are of the opinion that a mistake has crept into the order of the Tribunal. We therefore, modify Para 9 of the order of the Tribunal which is directed to be read as under: “9. So far as the grounds including the additional ground relating to the validity of the initiation of proceedings u/s 153C is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the impugned A.Y falls within the period of six years as envisaged in the provisions of section 153C of the Act and the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act. The basis of initiation of proceedings u/s 153C is the documents being provisional balance sheet of the assessee seized from the premises of Shri I. Shyam Prasad Reddy during the course of search at his premises on 18.7.2012. The satisfaction note was duly received by the Assessing Officer of the assessee from the Assessing Officer of the searched person. However, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Singhad Technical Education Society (Supra), the incriminating material seized has to pertains to the A.Y in question. We therefore, deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify as to whether any incriminating material pertain to this year or not and decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The additional ground raised by the assessee on this issue is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes”. M.A. No.12/Hyd.2023 – A.Y 2013-14 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee at the outset drew the attention of the Bench to the contents of the M.A which reads as under: MA Nos 11 and 12 of 2023 Walden Properties P Ltd Hyderabad Page 7 of 12 MA Nos 11 and 12 of 2023 Walden Properties P Ltd Hyderabad Page 8 of 12 MA Nos 11 and 12 of 2023 Walden Properties P Ltd Hyderabad Page 9 of 12 MA Nos 11 and 12 of 2023 Walden Properties P Ltd Hyderabad Page 10 of 12 MA Nos 11 and 12 of 2023 Walden Properties P Ltd Hyderabad Page 11 of 12 6. Referring to the above, he submitted that the contents of the M.A. are self-explanatory. Therefore, the Tribunal should pass appropriate order either by recalling the order of the Tribunal or by modifying the order. 7. The learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that there is no apparent error in the order of the Tribunal and the learned Counsel for the assessee through this M.A is requesting the Tribunal to recall/rectify the order which amounts to review of its own order by the Tribunal which is not permissible in law. 8. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the record. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that in Para 13 of the order, the order for the A.Y 2012-13 has been simply followed and the legal ground raised by the assessee has been dismissed. While adjudicating M.A. No.11/Hyd/2023, we have already restored the issue of validity of the addition u/s 153C to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Singhad Technical Education Society (Supra). However, in so far as the additional ground raised by the assessee for this year is concerned, the same is regarding the validity of the notice for the impugned A.Y being not within the block of six years since the search was conducted on 18.7.2012 in the case of Indu Projects Ltd. The learned Counsel for the assessee had specifically relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sarvar Agencies (P) Ltd reported in (2017) 85 Taxmann.com 269 and has also brought to the notice of the Bench regarding the provisions of section 153C. Further, he had also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. RRJ Securities Ltd reported in MA Nos 11 and 12 of 2023 Walden Properties P Ltd Hyderabad Page 12 of 12 346 ITR 177/ However, the grounds have been dismissed by following the order for A.Y 2012-13 where the issue was different. We therefore, are of the opinion that a mistake has crept in the order of the Tribunal which requires rectification under the provisions of section 254(2) of the I.T Act. We therefore, modify Para 13 of the order which is directed to be read as under: “13. After hearing both sides, we are of the opinion that the additional grounds raised by the assessee are required to be adjudicated by the Assessing Officer in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sarvar Agency (P) Ltd (Supra) as to whether the assessment made by the Assessing Officer was within the four corners of section 153C of the Act or not. In case the Assessing Officer finds that it is not within the four corners of section 153C of the Act, then the Assessing Officer shall adjudicate the other grounds i.e. validity of section 14A disallowance in the hands of the assessee. Thus, the matter is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer shall give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per fact and law. We hold and direct accordingly. The appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes”. 9. In the result, both the M.As filed by the assessee are allowed in the above terms. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 125 th September, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (LALIET KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER (R.K. PANDA) VICE-PRESIDENT Hyderabad, dated 25 th September, 2023. Vinodan/sps COPY to: S.No Addresses 1 Walden Properties (P) Ltd C/o Mohd. Afzal, Advocate, No.402, Sherson’s Residency, 11-5-465, Criminal Court Road, Red Hills, Hyderabad 500004 2 Dy.CIT, Central Circle 2(1) Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 3 Pr. CIT-Central, Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order