Gayatri Projects Limited , Hyd, Hyderabad V. Deputy Commiissioner of Income Tax , Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

MA 22/Hyd/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4878 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 20-02-2022
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD ‘ A ’ BENCH, HYDERABAD. BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L. P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. Nos.22 to 26/Hyd/2022 (In ITA Nos.1413,943, 944,1500 & 1501/Hyd/2016) (Assessment Years : 2009-10 to 2013-14) M/s. Gayatri Projects Limited, Hyderabad. PAN AAACG 8040K .....Appellant. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad. .....Respondent. Appellant By : Shri B. Shantikumar, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Rajendra Kumar. (D.R.) Date of Hearing : 01.04.2022. Date of Pronouncement : 04.04.2022. O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : These assessee’s five miscellaneous applications filed u/s. 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') seek to recall our impugned common order dt.24.08.2021 passed in all of six appeals (filed at the Revenue’s behest) restoring unexplained income addition(s) in the corresponding assessment years. Heard both sides. Case(s) records perused. 2 MA Nos.22 to 26/Hyd/2022 2. Learned counsel for the assessee has filed the common instant miscellaneous applications in all the Revenue’s six appeals ITA Nos.1412, 1413, 943, 944, 1500 & 1501/Hyd/2016; in assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14 respectively averring the following substantive grounds : 3 MA Nos.22 to 26/Hyd/2022 Suffice to say, in our common order in paras 3 to 3.5, we have restored the impugned addition not only by invoking the necessary presumption u/s. 292(C) of the Act but also in light of section 2(12A) as well as the survey statement given by the taxpayer’s authorized person. 3. Faced with this situation, we hold that even if our order has wrongly incorporated some facts as per assessee's pleadings hereinabove, the same hardly comes to its rescue as 254(2) proceedings do not tantamount to a complete rehearing as per CIT Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd. (2021) 133 4 MA Nos.22 to 26/Hyd/2022 taxmann.com 41 (SC) and ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC). We thus find no merit in assessee's pleadings in these miscellaneous applications. 4. These assessee's five miscellaneous applications are dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 4th April, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (L.P. SAHU) (S.S. GODARA) Accountant Member Judicial Member Hyderabad, Dt. 4th April, 2022. * Reddy gp Copy to : 1. M/s. Gayatri Projects Limited, 6-3-1090, B1, TSR Towers, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2. DCIT, Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad. 3. Pr. C I T (Central), Hyderabad. 4. CIT (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad. 5. D.R., ITAT, Hyderabad. 6. Guard File. By Order Sr. Pvt. Secretary, ITAT, Hyderabad.