Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax , Circle-2(2), Hyderabad V. The Nizam Sugars Limited, Hyderabad

MA 38/Hyd/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4665 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 40(a)(ia); 254(2); 194A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No.38/HYD/2022 (Arising out of ITA No.1239/Hyd/2019) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Vs M/s.The Nizam Sugars Limited, Hyderabad [PAN: AAACT7969A] (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri A.V.Raghuram, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 22/04/2022 Pronouncement on 22/04/2022 ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM: This Miscellaneous Application is filed by the Revenue seeking to recall the order dated 24/03/2021 in ITA No.1239/Hyd/2019 for the AY.2016-17 on the following Grounds: “1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is correct in law in allowing the provision made towards interest payable on loans, though the assessee debited towards interest to comply with the provisions of Sec.194A and consequently disallowable under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income tax Act? : 2 : MA No.38/Hyd/2022 2.Any other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing. 3.In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in law in declining the ground of the revenue by deleting the disallowance u/s.43B of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of provision for interest on loan from Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, APSCSC and APSRDC”. 2. Ld.AR resisted this petition stating that the grounds now pleaded by the Revenue for recalling the order dt.24/03/2021 do not pertain to any error apparent on the face of record, but on the other hand, the Revenue wants adjudication of the matter on an alternative plea, which they fail to take in the appeal itself. 3. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. It could be seen from the appeal that the only ground taken by the Revenue was to the effect that - “Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is correct in law in allowing the expenditure which was a mere provision but not actually incurred during the year?” The matter was heard on merits on 22/02/2021 and by order dt.24/03/2021, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. Now, the plea taken on behalf of the Revenue is that the expenditure claimed by the assessee in respect of interest payable on loans was dis-allowable u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in as much as the assessee failed to comply with the provisions of Section 194A of the Act, apart from the ground that was originally taken in the appeal itself. Obviously, the MA is not in respect of any mistake apparent on the face of record, but it is only in respect of an alternative ground which could have been taken by the Revenue in the : 3 : MA No.38/Hyd/2022 appeal itself, but was not taken. Such a ground is not available for rectification u/s. 254(2) of the Act. 4. In the result, this MA is misconceived one, and is accordingly dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this the 22 nd day of April, 2022 Sd/- Sd Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 22/04/2022 TNMM Copy forwarded to: 1. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad. 2. M/s.The Nizam Sugars Limited, #5-10-174, Shakar Bhavan, Fathemaidan Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 3. CIT(Appeals)-2, Hyderabad. 4. Pr.CIT-2, Hyderabad. 5. D.R. ITAT, Hyderabad. 6. Guard File. TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, HYDERABAD