TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on issues involved – Appeal allowed. - ITA No.98/Hyd/2012, C.O. No.03/Hyd/2013, ITA No.44/Hyd/2013 - - - Dated:- 21-6-2013 - Shri Chandra Poojari And Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Salil Kapoor, Vikas Jain Gurdev Chawla, Shri D. V. Anjaneyulu For the Respondent : Shri MPB Reddy M. Ravidnra Sai (CIT-DR) ORDER Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member: There are three matters in this bunch. While the appeal of the Revenue, being ITA No.98/Hyd/2012 and Cross-Objection of the assessee, being C.O.No.3/Hyd/2013 are directed against the orde4r of Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) III, Hyderabad dated 27.12.2011, the other appeal being ITA No.44/Hyd/2012 is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) dated 14.11.2012 for the assessment year 2007-08. Since these matters are interlinked, they are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. M/S. K.N.R. CONSTRUCTIONS Assessee's Appeal : ITA No.98/Hyd/2012 AND : Assessment year 2007-08 Revenue's CO : C.O. No.03/Hyd/2013 (in ITA No.98/Hyd/2012) 2. Facts of the case leading to the filing of the present appeal by the assessee and the Cross Object ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - III (C.LT Appeals) is erroneous and invalid on the following grounds : 1. The learned C.LT (Appeals) is not justified in not disposing the petition of the appellant assessee filed under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules for cross examination of various parties, without giving speaking or reasoned order and there by disposing of the appeal without inviting appellant arguments on merits. 2. The learned C.LT (Appeals) is not justified in upholding the action of the A.O, in taking the sale consideration of Rs. 60,00,75,0001- in sale deeds between IRMAC Services India Ltd., and PBEL Real Estate India (P) Ltd for assessment of capital gains of the appellant company, instead of taking the sale consideration of Rs. 13,89,06,2501- in AGPA between the appellant company and IRMAC, without properly appraising the definition of section 45, section 2(14), and section 2(47) of Income Tax Act and their implications on transfer of capital asset between appellant company and IRMAC and arriving at capital gains of Rs. 54,11,46,794/in the hands of the assessee company, by making allegations, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w on facts in not appreciating that sale consideration of Rs.46,11,68,750/- was never received accrued to the appellant as such the alleged income added in the hands of appellant are without any basis is purely on presumptions. 6) That the addition/disallowance made are illegal, unjust and bad in law and are based on mere surmises and conjunctures and the same cannot be justified by any material on record. 7) That the evidence filed and materials available on record have not been properly construed and judiciously interpreted, hence the addition/disallowance made is uncalled for." 5. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that the additional grounds raised are of legal nature and they go to the root of the matter and therefore, the same may be admitted, since inadvertently the same could not be raised earlier before the lower authorities. 6. The learned Departmental Representative on the other hand, has not seriously disputed the admission of the additional gorunds raised by the assessee. 7. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and we have perused the decisions on which reliance is placed from both the sides. The Tribunal while dealing with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on the merits of the ground that no such ground has been taken specifically in the grounds of appeal. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (supra) has held: "...The power of the Tribunal in dealing with appeals is thus expressed in the widest possible terms. The purpose of assessment proceedings before the taxing authorities is to assess correctly the tax liability of an assessee in accordance with law. If, for example, as a result of a judicial decision given while the appeal is pending before the Tribunal, it is found that a non-taxable item is taxed or a permissible deduction is denied, there is no reason why the assessee should be prevented from raising that question before the Tribunal for the first time, so long as the relevant facts are on record in respect of the item. There is no reason to restrict the power of the Tribunal under Section 254 only to decide the grounds which arise from the order of the CIT(A). Both the assessee as well as the Department have a right to file an appeal/cross-objections before the Tribunal. The Tribunal should not be prevented from considering questions of law arising in assessment proceedings, although not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lease be given to TAX the same in hands of M/s. IRMAC SERVICES INDIA Ltd., Hyd - A.Y. 2007-08. 5. Accordingly this Cross Objection is filed before Hon'ble ITAT Hyderabad 'A' Bench Hyderabad requesting for consideration while deciding the issue in the case of M/s. K.N.R. Constructions Ltd., in ITA No.98/Hyd/2011-012." In view of our decision on the appeal of the assessee, in the context of the admission of the additional grounds raised by the assessee, in para 5 above, whereby we have set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, in the first place, on the legal issues involved in the additional grounds raised, and thereafter on the merits of the other grounds, the CO of the assessee has become infructuous. As such it is rejected. 9. In the result, while appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, Cross Objections of the Revenue, being infructuous, is dismissed. M/s. Irmac Services India Limited , Hyderabad Assessee's Appeal : ITA No.44/Hyd/2013 10. In this appeal by the assessee, in whose hands protective addition corresponding addition on substantive basis has been made in the case of M/s. K.N. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
