Sri B.Ravi Kumar Reddy, Bangalore V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad

MA 68/BANG/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Shri B. Ravi Kumar Reddy, who filed a rectification application (MP No.68/Bang/2022) against an earlier Tribunal order (ITA No.1147/Hyd/2013) which remanded his case to the AO. The original dispute pertained to the assessment year 2008-09, where the revenue challenged certain claims made by the assessee. The Tribunal had previously remanded the case to the AO for a de novo verification of the assessee's claims, ensuring a proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard. In the rectification application, the assessee contested the remand and sought corrections in the Tribunal's order, particularly regarding a monetary figure that was incorrectly stated as Rs.414.79 crores instead of Rs.414.79 lakhs. The Tribunal acknowledged the typographical error and corrected it but did not alter the remand decision, emphasizing the need for a detailed examination of the claims in accordance with the law and evidence presented.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 129992 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 01-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-10-2022
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Shri A. Mahesh Reddy Vs. ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V. CHANDRASHEKAR
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

MP No.68/Bang/2022 Shri B. Ravi Kumar Reddy, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER MP No.68/Bang/2022 (Arising out of ITA No.1147/Hyd/2013) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri B. Ravi Kumar Reddy No.48/1, C.M. Mohan Building Tumkur Road Yeshwantpur Bangalore PAN NO : ADLPR6631A Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Central Circle-3 Hyderabad APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V. Chandrashekar, A.R. Respondent by : Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R. Date of Hearing : 07.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 02.05.2023 O R D E R PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This MA filed by the assessee seeking rectification order of the Tribunal in revenue’s appeal in ITA No.1147/Hyd/2013 dated 4.4.2022. The ld. A.R. submitted that the revenue came in appeal before this Tribunal in the above case for the assessment year 2008-09, wherein the Tribunal has observed as under: “Based on the above submission by both sides, we remand the issue alleged by revenue in their appeal to ld. AO. The assessee shall file all relevant details before the ld. AO, based on which, necessary de novo verification will be carried out. The claim of assessee will be considered in accordance with law having regard MP No.68/Bang/2022 Shri B. Ravi Kumar Reddy, Bangalore Page 2 of 3 to the evidence filed by assessee. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee. Accordingly, the appeal filed by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes. 9. As we have remanded the appeal filed by revenue, the cross objection filed by assessee becomes infructuous. However the ld. AR, at the time of argument withdrew the cross objection. Accordingly, the cross objection filed by assessee stands dismissed as withdrawn.” 2. The ld. A.R. submitted that this case is connected to the case of Shri A. Mahesh Reddy Vs. ACIT in ITA No.1236/Hyd/2012 dated 19.4.2013, wherein the Tribunal directed the AO and deleted the addition made in respect of alleged unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short], since the addition is not based on any corroborative evidence. When the entire addition is deleted in the case of A. Mahesh Reddy cited (supra), on the same reason, the addition in the case of present assessee is to be deleted. Accordingly, he submitted that the Tribunal without discussing anything on merit of the issue remanded back to the file of AO for fresh consideration, which has to be corrected and the figure mentioned in the Tribunal order was at Rs.414.79 Crores instead of Rs.414.79 lakhs, which may be corrected accordingly. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The Tribunal while disposing the appeal in ITA No.1147/Hyd/2013 vide order dated 4.4.2012 mentioned the figures in para 6 as Rs.414.79 crores instead of Rs.414.79 lakhs. In our opinion, this is a typographical error crept in the order. The said figure is to be read as “Rs.414.79 lakhs instead of Rs.414.79 crores” mentioned there in the order. 3.1 With regard to other argument of ld. A.R. for the assessee is that addition is to be deleted as in the case of Shri A. Mahesh MP No.68/Bang/2022 Shri B. Ravi Kumar Reddy, Bangalore Page 3 of 3 Reddy cited (supra). In our opinion, the Tribunal has taken a conscious decision of remitting the issue in dispute to the file of AO to examine the issue in the light of order of the Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of A. Mahesh Reddy cited (supra) and the Tribunal has not committed any error, which requires rectification at this end. Being so, we do not find any merit in this argument of the assessee’s counsel on this issue raised by the assessee in this MA and the same is dismissed. 4. In the result, the MA filed by the assessee in MP No.68/Bang/2022 is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 02 nd May, 2023 Sd/- (Chandra Poojari) Accountant Member Sd/- (Beena Pillai) Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated 02 nd May, 2023. VG/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(Judicial) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.