Gayatri Projects Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyd, Hyderabad

MA 9/Hyd/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5086 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 31-01-2022
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD ‘ B ’ BENCH, HYDERABAD. BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L. P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Virtual Hearing) M.A. No.9/Hyd/2022 (In ITA No.1412/Hyd/2016) (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad. .....Appellant. Vs. M/s. Gayatri Projects Limited, Hyderabad. PAN AAACG 8040K .....Respondent. Appellant By : Shri B. Shantikumar, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Rajendra Kumar. (D.R.) Date of Hearing : 18.02.2022. Date of Pronouncement : 28.02.2022. O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This assessee’s miscellaneous application filed u/s. 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') seeks to recall our impugned common order dt.24.08.2021 passed in all of its six appeals (filed at the Revenue’s behest) restoring unexplained income addition(s) in the corresponding assessment years. Heard both sides. Case records perused. 2 MA No.9/Hyd/2022 2. It transpires at the outset that the assessee has filed a common instant miscellaneous application 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. Mr. Shantikumar stated very fairly that the instant miscellaneous application M.A.No.9 / Hyd / 2022 may be treated as to have been filed in ITA No.1412/Hyd/2016 only. We appreciate his fair attitude and proceed to deal with the assessee's averments in the miscellaneous application herein reading as follows : 3 MA No.9/Hyd/2022 Suffice to say, in our common order in paras 3 to 3.5, we have restored the impugned addition not only by involving 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 No.9/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 this miscellaneous application. 4. The assessee's instant miscellaneous application is dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th Feb., 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (L.P. SAHU) (S.S. GODARA) Accountant Member Judicial Member Hyderabad, Dt. 28 th Feb., 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.