Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
Venkata Ramana Rao Mannam, Hyderabad, ... vs Dcit, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad, ... on 25 October, 2021
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)
ITA No.1699/Hyd/2016 & 499/Hyd/2017
(Assessment Year : 2011-12)
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. .....Appellant.
Vs.
Shri Mannam Venkata Ramana Rao,
Hyderabad. .....Respondent/Cross Appellant.
PAN AOUPM1547G
Assessee By : Shri P. Murali Moahana Rao.
Revenue By : Shri YVST Sai. (D.R.)
Date of Hearing : 06.10.2021.
Date of Pronouncement : 25.10.2021.
O R D E R
Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. :
This Revenue's appeal ITA 1699/Hyd/2016 with assessee's cross appeal for Asst. Year 2011-12 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad's order dt.19.06.2016 passed in case No.0062/CIT(A)- 1/Hyd/2014-15/2016-17 in proceedings under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 2 ITA Nos.1699/Hyd/2016 &
499/Hyd/2017 Heard both the parties. Case files perused.
2. We come to the assessee's first and foremost substantive grievance in its cross appeal ITA 499/Hyd/2017 challenging validity of the reopening itself as not sustainable which goes to the root of the matter.
Brief facts may be noticed.
3. The brief facts may be noticed. There is no dispute even as per the Assessing Officer's assessment order dt.27.3.2014 that the assessee had in fact filed his return on 24.01.2012 in Range 12, Hyderabad. Learned CIT-DR has taken a very strong exception that the assessee is nowhere assessed in the said range and therefore, his foregoing return is not a valid one. The fact however remains that the said return duly stood accepted as a valid one only. The Revenue's foregoing technical argument stand declined accordingly.
4. We next proceed to note that the Assessing Officer issued his 148 notice dt.27.11.2012 after forming reasons to believe that the assessee's taxable income liable to be assessed had escaped assessment. The question that arises 3 ITA Nos.1699/Hyd/2016 & 499/Hyd/2017 for our apt adjudication; as per vehement rival contentions, is as to whether the impugned reopening initiated during the pendency of scrutiny itself would be valid in law or not. Case law (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 114 Trustees of HEH The Nizam's Supplementary Family Trust Vs. CIT and TCP Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 346 (Mad) hold that unless the return of income already filed is not disposed of, notice for reassessment u/s. 148 cannot be issued and no reassessment proceedings can be initiated so long as assessment proceedings pending on the basis of the return earlier filed are not terminated. Learned CIT-DR failed to dispute that the date of issuance of 148 notice herein is 27.11.2012 (page 75 in Revenue's paper book) is very well during assessee's scrutiny assessment period only. We thus quash the impugned reopening for this precise reason alone thereby holding that all other pleadings on merit in both these cross appeals are rendered academic. Ordered accordingly.
5. The Revenue's appeal 1699/Hyd/2016 is dismissed and assessee's cross appeal ITA No.499/Hyd/2017 is 4 ITA Nos.1699/Hyd/2016 & 499/Hyd/2017 allowed in foregoing terms. Copy of this common order be placed in respective case files.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25th Oct., 2021.
Sd/- Sd/-
(L.P. SAHU) (S.S. GODARA)
Accountant Member Judicial Member
Hyderabad, Dt.25.10.2021.
* Reddy gp
Copy to :
1. Shri Mannem Venkata Ramana Rao, Director in M/s.
American Infoserve Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.797 & 798, 100 Feet Road, Swamy Ayyappa Society, Madhapur, Hyderabad.
2. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad.
3. Pr. C I T-1, Hyderabad.
4. CIT(Appeals)-1, Hyderabad.
5. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad.
6. Guard File.
By Order Sr. Pvt. Secretary, ITAT, Hyderabad.