Satya Parvathi Constructions, Ongole, Ongole V. ITO, Ward-2, Ongole, Ongole

MA 3/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4811 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-08-2019
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C RAJESWARA REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: K A SAI PRASAD
• Keywords: Business income; TDS
• Section: 40(a)(ia)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 03/HYD/2019 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 336/HYD/2016) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. SATYA PARVATHI CONSTRUCTIONS, ONGOLE [PAN: AAPFS8349R] VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, ONGOLE (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI K.A. SAI PRASAD, AR FOR REVENUE : SHRI C. RAJESWARA REDDY, DR DATE OF HEARING : 02-08-2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09-08-2019 O R D E R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE, SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF ALLEGED MISTAKES IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE CONTENTIONS OF ASSESSEE IN THE MISCELLAN EOUS APPLICATION ARE AS UNDER: THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT WITH REGARD TO INTEREST P AYMENT OF RS.2,94,633 THE APPELLANT OBTAINED FORM NO.15G FROM THE RECIPIENTS BUT DID NOT FILE THE SAME BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT FORMS BEFORE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX WITH IN THE STIPULATED TIME THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A N ADDITION OF RS.2,94,633 U/S 40(A)(IA) FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX. 2 M.A. NO. 03/HYD/2019 BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLANT AUTHORITY THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT THOUGH THE FORM NO.15G WAS NOT FILED BEFORE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX IT WILL NOT FASTEN THE APPELLANT WITH LIABILITY TO MAKE THE TDS ONCE FORM 15G ARE OBTAINED AND ARE MADE AVAILABLE BEFORE ASSESSING OF FICER PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. THE APPELLANT RELIED ON T HE DECISION OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI IN THE CASE OF VI JAY A BANK VS ITO 31 ITR TRIB 427. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ACCEPTED TH ESE CONTENTIONS AND DELETED THE ADDITION. HOWEVER HE DIRECTED THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS U/S 272A(2)(F). AGAINST THIS DECISIONS REVENUE FILED AN APPEAL RAIS ING TO FOLLOWING GROUND. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 197A(1A) DIRECTING THE ASSESS EE TO SUBMIT THE DECLARATIONS IN FORM NO.15G MADE BY THE PAYEES, TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. THE ASSESSEE FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS RAISING THE FOL LOWING GROUNDS. 1. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN RESPECT OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,94 ,633/- U/S. 40(A)(IA), THE APPELLANT CONTENTS THAT SINCE THE INCOME IS EST IMATED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC 40A(IA) ARE NOT APPLICABLE AND THE DISALLOWANCE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS NOT JU STIFIED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS U/S 271A(2)(F). THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL'S OBSERVA TIONS IN ITS ORDER, DT.05.07.2018 AT PARAS 31,32,33 PAGES 21,22 & 23 AR E AS UNDER: 31 THE ONLY OTHER GROUND OF THE REVENUE IN THE AP PEAL FOR THE A Y. 2012-13 IS WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 197 A(1A) OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENT DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 40(A )(IA) OF THE ACT. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, VIDE CROSS OBJECTIONS, WAS THAT IN THE CA SE OF ESTIMATE OF INCOME, ALL OTHER DISALLOWANCES ARE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN CARE AN D HENCE NO SEPARATE ADDITION IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF AP. HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF INDWELL CONSTRUCTIONS (SUPRA). IT MAY BE NOTICED THAT THE R EVENUE PREFERRED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT (A) ON THE GROUND THAT MERE OBT AINING FORM 15G IS NOT A SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE U/S 194A READ WITH SECTION 197A(1A) OF T HE ACT AND IT IS A DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE DECLARATIONS TO THE CIT WITH IN THE STIPULATED TIME. 32. LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THERE IS A SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE IF THE DECLARATIONS ARE OBTAINED IN FORM 15G FROM THE PAYEES AND EVEN THOUG H THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FORWARDED THE SAME TO THE CIT. 3 M.A. NO. 03/HYD/2019 33. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS C OMMITTED AN ERROR IN APPRECIATING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 197A(1A) OF THE ACT THE LEGIS LATURE IN ITS WISDOM THOUGHT IT M TO ENFORCE DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE BY THE PAYER WHO IS AN INCOME TAX ASSESSEE AND IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE THE RECIPIENTS ARE NOT INCOME TAX ASSESSEES, A PROCEDURE IS PRESCRIBED WHEREBY THE PARTIES HAVE TO STATE IN FORM 15G THAT THE INCOME EARNED BY THEM DOES NOT EXCEED MAXIMUM LIMIT WHICH IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO INCOME TAX. THE DECLARANT HAS TO FURNISH PAN, COMPLETE ADDRESS AND OTHER DETAILS. AS A MATTER OF ABUNDANT CAUTION IT ALSO PRESCRIBED THE PROCEDURE T O BE FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE WHO HAS TO GIVE THE UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER AND OT HER DETAILS AND THE SAME HAS TO BE FORWARDED TO THE COMMISSIONER. THIS IS TO ENSURE TH AT THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES CAN CROSS VERIFY AS TO WHETHER THE PAYEES ARE INCOM E TAX ASSESSEE OR NOT. IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS MANDATORY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS TO THE COMMISSIONER, THOUGH NOT WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME BUT ATLEAST BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, NO DETAILS WERE FURNISHED TO INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FORWARDED FORM 15G TO THE CIT . UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE COMMITTED AN ERRO R IN MAKING THE PAYMENT WITHOUT DEDUCTING THE TAX AT SOURCE AND CONSEQUENTLY THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) ARE APPLICABLE. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IN THE CASE OF ESTIMATE OF INCOME AFTER REJECTING THE BOOK RESULTS, THERE CANNOT BE ANY IND EPENDENT DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THIS ISSUE WAS DISCUSSED BY THE ITAT VI SAKHAPATNAM BENCH IN THE CASE OF K. VENKATARAJU VEMAGIRI VS. ADD.CIT (ITA NO. 312/VISAK HA/2018, DATED 03.05.2018) WHEREIN (ONE OF THE MEMBERS IS A PARTY) THE BENCH O BSERVED THAT A DISALLOWANCE IS A TECHNICAL DISALLOWANCE AND MORE PRECISELY DEFERMENT OF ALLOWANCE, WHICH IS LINKED WITH THE COMPLIANCE OF TDS PROVISIONS AND HENCE EVEN IF THE BUSINESS INCOME IS ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT I NDEPENDENTLY. THIS VIEW WAS TAKEN AFTER CONSIDERING TILE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ANDH RA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INDWELL CONSTRUCTIONS (SUPRA). CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN THEREIN WE HOLD- THAT THE A O. HAS CORRECTLY APPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 40(A) (IA) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IF THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE DECLARATION IN F ORM 15G WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT BEFORE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION, THE A.O. MAY RECONSIDER THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE ALS O SET-ASIDE THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT (A) WITH REGARD TO INITIATION OF 272A PROCEEDINGS S INCE THE MAIN ISSUE IS SET-ASIDE TO THE FILE OF A.O'. IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FAC T THAT THE FORM NO.15G WAS NOT FILED BEFORE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND IT IS ALSO AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THEY WERE FILED BEFORE ASSESSI NG OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THE CIRCUMSTAN CES, WITH DUE RESPECT, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BLE INCOME TA X APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS NOT CORRECT IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO E XAMINE WHETHER THE FORM NO.15G WAS FILED BEFORE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OR NOT. THE ISSUES ITSELF IS THAT EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF NON FILING TH E RELEVANT FORM WHETHER THE DISALLOWANCE IS WARRANTED OR NOT. HENCE THE DIR ECTION TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE SAME WAS FILED BEFORE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX, WE SUBMIT, WILL NOT SERVE THE PURPOSE OF EXAMINING THE ISSUE ON MERITS. 4 M.A. NO. 03/HYD/2019 THE DECISION OF DELHI INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT DISCUSSED TO AT ALL. THE DECISION OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM REFERRED TO BY HON 'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS ALTOGETHER ON DIFFERENT ISSUE AND IS AGAINST THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY JURISDICTION AP HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF INDWELL CONSTRUCTION VS CIT (232 ITR 776). IT IS SUBMITTED THAT: A) HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DID NOT DISCU SS THE CASE LAW WHICH WAS DIRECTLY ON THE ISSUE AND WHICH WAS R ELIED ON BY CIT (B) THE DIRECTIONS TO ASSESSING OFFICER RE EXAM INE THE UNDISPUTED FACTS CAUSES FUTILE EXERCISE (C) THE DEC ISION RELIED ON BY HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN DECIDING T HE ISSUE RAISED IN CROSS OBJECTION IS DIRECTLY AGAINST THE RATIO LA ID DOWN BY JURISDICTIONAL AP HIGH COURT. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE THEE IS A MISTAKE APPAREN T FROM THE RECORD AND IT IS PRAYED THAT THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL BE PLEASED TO RECALL THE ORDER DT.05.07.2018 IN ITA NO.336/H/16 O N THE ISSUE COVERED BY GROUND NO.4 RAISED BY REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJE CTIONS FILED BY ASSESSEE. 2. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD OBTAINED FORM-15G FROM THE PAYEES AND THEREFORE, H AD NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ON THE INTEREST PAYMENTS TO THE RECI PIENTS. HOWEVER, IT HAD FAILED TO SUBMIT THE SAME BEFORE THE CIT WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD/STIPULATED TIME; DUE TO WHICH, THE A SSESSING OFFICER (AO) HAD MADE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT [ACT]. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD REMITTED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO TO VERIFY WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED FORM-15G BEFORE THE CIT OR NOT? HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS DI RECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS INFRUCTUOUS AS IT IS ALREADY AN AD MITTED FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THESE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE CIT A ND NO PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED BY SUCH REMAND TO THE AO. H E FURTHER RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONA L HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INDWELL CONSTRUCTIONS VS. CIT [232 ITR 77 6] (AP), 5 M.A. NO. 03/HYD/2019 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT - WHERE THE INCOME IS ESTIMATED, THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.28 TO 40 OF THE ACT ARE NOT TO BE MADE . HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ALSO FALLS WITHIN SECTION 40 OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, S UCH DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE MADE WHEN THE INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE IS ESTIMATED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD REFERRED TO THE SAID DECISION BUT HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE SAME AND THEREFO RE, IT IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTI ON THAT SUCH MISTAKES ARE RECTIFIABLE U/S.254(2) OF THE ACT, H E PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAW: A) ACIT VS. SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LTD., [173 TAXMAN 322] (SC)/[305 ITR 227](SC) WHEREIN I T WAS HELD THAT - NON CONSIDERATION OF A DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OR OF SUPREME COURT CAN BE SAID TO BE A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD, WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED U/S.25 4(2) . B) HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD., VS. CIT [295 ITR 466 ] (SC)/[165 TAXMAN 307] (SC), WHEREIN THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HELD THAT - THE TRIBUNAL ACKNOWLEDGED ITS MISTAKE OF NOT CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BEN CH EVEN WHEN THE SAME WAS CITED BEFORE IT AND, ACCORDINGLY, RECTIFIED ITS ORDER BY ALLOWING ASSESSEES CLAIM. HOWEVER, TH E HON'BLE HIGH COURTS SETTING ASIDE THE TRIBUNALS ORDER, IS NOT SUSTAINABLE . C) CIT VS. V.S.DEMPO & CO.LTD., (2012) [28 TAXMANN.COM 2 35] (BOMBAY), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE DECISIONS OF THE 6 M.A. NO. 03/HYD/2019 HIGHER COURTS ARE BOUND TO BE FOLLOWED, IRRESPECTIV E OF PERSONAL VIEWS OF LOWER COURTS OR AUTHORITIES . D) ACIT VS. WARANGAL URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., (2016) [73 TAXMANN.COM 229] (HYDERABAD TRIB.), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE IN RESPECT OF INTEREST PAYMENT TO NON-MEMBERS , WHERE ASSESSEE OBTAINED FORM-15G, THERE WOULD BE NO TDS DEDUCTION; HOWEVER, TO VERIFY FORM-15G AND GRANT EX EMPTION, ACCORDINGLY, THE MATTER WAS TO BE REMITTED BACK. E) GOPAL RAM PEMA RAM VS. ACIT (2014) [50 TAXMANN.COM 132] (JODHPUR TRIB.), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT NON APPLICATION OF JUDGEMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT AND JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL AMOUNTS TO A MISTAKE APPARE NT FROM RECORD WHICH IS RECTIFIABLE U/S.254(2). F) KARWAT STEEL TRADERS VS. ITO (2013) [37 TAXMANN.COM 19 0] (MUMBAI-TRIB.), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT SINCE SEPARATE PROVISIONS WERE PRESCRIBED FOR DEFAULT FOR NON-FILI NG OR DELAYED FILING OF FORM 15G/15H TO COMMISSIONER, NON -FILING OF SUCH FORM WOULD NOT INVOKE DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A )(IA). G) VIJAYA BANK VS. ITO (2014) [31 ITR (TRIB) 427] (ITA T-DEL), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE ASSESSEE HAVING DECLARATIONS IN FORMS 15G AND 15H WITH IT, AT TIME WHEN INTEREST PAID TO RESPECTIVE CUSTOMER, ASSESSEE IS N OT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE. IN CASES OF DELAY IN FILING T HE DECLARATIONS WITH DEPARTMENT, SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS NOT ATTRACTED. 7 M.A. NO. 03/HYD/2019 2.1. THUS, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NO N- APPLICATION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE C ASE OF INDWELL CONSTRUCTIONS VS. CIT (SUPRA), IS A MISTAKE A PPARENT FROM RECORD RECTIFIABLE U/S.254(2) OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED FORM-15G BEFORE THE C IT WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD, BUT HAS FILED THE SAME BEFORE THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE DIRECT OF ITAT, REMANDI NG IT TO THE FILE OF AO FOR VERIFICATION AS TO WHETHER ASSESSEE FILED THE FORMS BEFORE THE CIT, IS ALSO A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD AS NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED AND IT IS AGAINST THE A DMITTED FACT RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. LD.DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF TH E TRIBUNAL AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INDW ELL CONSTRUCTIONS VS. CIT (SUPRA) AND ALSO HAS FOLLOWED TH E DECISIONS OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AT VISAKHAPATNAM IN THE CASE OF K.VENKATARAJU VS. ADDL.CIT IN ITA NO.312/VIZ AG/2008, DT.03-05-2013, TO HOLD THAT THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE H IGH COURT IS NOT STRICTLY APPLICABLE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO MISTAKE APPA RENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL, WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED U/S.254(2) OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS ONLY SEEKING REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH IS NOT PERM ISSIBLE U/S.254(2) OF THE ACT. 3.1. AS REGARDS FURNISHING OF FORM-15G BEFORE AO DU RING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME HAV E TO 8 M.A. NO. 03/HYD/2019 BE FURNISHED BEFORE THE CIT WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIO D, BUT SINCE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DO SO, THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.40 (A)(IA) OF THE ACT IS ATTRACTED. HOWEVER, HE ALSO AGREED THAT ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE SAME BEFORE THE CIT WIT HIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD, THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL WOULD N OT SERVE ANY PURPOSE. 4. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND MATERIAL O N RECORD, WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF INDWELL CONSTRUCTI ONS VS. CIT (SUPRA), THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE INCOME IS ESTIMATED, THEN, NO OTHER DISALLOWANCE U/S.28 TO 40 ARE TO BE MADE. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED THE IMPACT OF TH IS DECISION IN THE CASE OF K.VENKATARAJU VS. ADDL.CIT ( SUPRA) AND BY HOLDING THAT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT I S TO BE MADE EVEN WHERE THE INCOME IS ESTIMATED. THOUGH LD.COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON VARIOUS DECISIONS, WE FIND THAT THEY ARE IN THE CASES WHERE THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH C OURTS OR CO-ORDINATE BENCHES WERE NOT CONSIDERED AND HENCE IT W AS HELD TO BE A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. HOWEVER, AS PER TH E FINDINGS BEFORE US, THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED THE ABOVE DECI SION OF THE JURISDICTIOINAL HIGH COURT AND HAS TAKEN A PARTICULAR V IEW. CHANGING THAT VIEW BY WAY OF AN ORDER IN THE MISCELLA NEOUS APPLICATION WOULD ONLY AMOUNT TO REVIEW OF THE ORDER, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE U/S.254(2) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ARG UMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NON-APPLICATION OF THE DECISION OF THE HO N'BLE HIGH COURT OR NOT ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES CROSS-OBJECTION BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INDWELL 9 M.A. NO. 03/HYD/2019 CONSTRUCTIONS VS. CIT (SUPRA), IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FR OM RECORD, IS REJECTED. 4.1. AS FAR AS THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL TO THE AO TO VERIFY WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED FORM-15G BEFORE THE CIT IS CONCERNED, WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD.COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT NO PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED BY SUCH A DIRECTION AS IT IS ALREADY AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT FILED SUCH FORM BEFORE THE CONCERNED CIT. HOWEVER, IN THE I NTEREST OF JUSTICE AND IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCHES IN THE CASES OF KARWAT STEEL TRADERS VS. ITO (SUPRA) AND VIJAYA BANK VS. ITO (SUPRA), WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO AMEND THE DIRECTION I.E., REMAND THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) WITH A DI RECTION TO ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT RELEVANT FORMS BEFORE HIM, WHO MAY CALL FOR A REPORT FROM THE RESPECTIVE CIT, WHO SHALL VERIFY THE SA ME AND THE CIT(A) SHALL THEN CONSIDER THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A) (IA) OF THE ACT. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THUS STANDS MODIFIED TO TH IS EFFECT. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH AUGUST, 2019 SD/- SD/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (P. MADHAVI DEVI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMB ER HYDERABAD, DATED 9 TH AUGUST, 2019 TNMM 10 M.A. NO. 03/HYD/2019 COPY TO : 1. M/S.SATYA PARVATHI CONSTRUCTIONS, PR.SRI M HARI PREMNATH, GF-4, DATTA SAI TOWERS, LAWYERPET, ONGOLE . 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, ONGOLE. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)-1, GUNTUR. 4. THE PR.CIT-GUNTUR. 5. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.