Siva Sai Constructions & Real Estates, ... vs Assessee

ITA No.1476/Hyd/2014 : Asst. Year 2007-08

M/s. Siva Sai Constructions & V/s. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Real Estates, Nagupally Village Khammam Sathupally, Khammam Dist.

( PAN - ABFFS 9689 F )

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by : Shri Y.V.Bhanu Narayan Rao

Respondent by : Shri Parneet S.Sachdev

Date of Hearing 23.01.2015 Date of Pronouncement 23.01.2015

ORDER

Per D.Manmohan, Vice President

This appeal by the assessee-firm is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) Vijayawada dated 2.4.2014.

2. At the outset, it may be noticed that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under S.143(3) of the Act on 22.12.2009, which was recalled by the revisional authority in exercise of the powers conferred on him under S.263 of the Act and gave specific directions to make certain additions. Accordingly, the assessment was completed under S.144 read with S.263 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), which was dismissed by observing as under-

2 ITA No.1470/Hyd/2014 M/s. Siva Sai Constructions & Real Estates, Nagupally(V), Sathupally, Khammam Dist.

" This appeal arises from the order passed u/s. 144 r.w.s.263 of the Income Tax Act,1961 hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for the Assessment year 2007- 08, carrying out the directions of the Commissioner of Income-tax Vijayawada in the order u/s. 263 of the Act dated 21.03.2012.

2. On verification of the assessment order, it is found that the Assessing Officer has made additions based on the directions of the Commissioner of Income-tax only and no other additions were made.

3. As the Commissioner of Income-tax and the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) are the equal authorities, an appeal against the assessment completed as per the direction of the Commissioner of Income-tax u/s. 263 of the Act could not be decided by the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal is treated as dismissed for statistical purposes."

3. Further aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us.

4. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee did not dispute the fact that the revisional authority had given specific directions to the Assessing Officer to make assessment, as per the specific reasons given in 263 order and, such being the case, the assessee could have preferred an appeal against the order under S.263 rather than filling an appeal against the consequential order passed under S.144 read with S.263 of the Act. In other words, the remedy, if at all, lies with the assessee, in preferring an appeal against the order passed by the revisional authority. In other words, the learned CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed under S.144 read with S.263 on the ground that it is not maintainable. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the submissions of the assessee. Having heard the learned counsel as well 3 ITA No.1470/Hyd/2014 M/s. Siva Sai Constructions & Real Estates, Nagupally(V), Sathupally, Khammam Dist.

as the Learned Departmental Representative, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the learned CIT(A) does not call for any interference.

5. At the same time, we may observe that the assessee is free to file an appeal before the Tribunal against the order passed under S.263, if the statute permits and if there is reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. With these observations, as pronounced in the open court, the appeal filed by the assessee-firm is dismissed.

Sd/- Sd/- (P.,M.Jagtap) (D.Manmohan) Accountant Member Vice President

Dt/- 23rd January, 2015

Copy forwarded to:

1. M/s. Siva Sai Constructions & Real Estates, Nagupalli Village, Sathupally, Khammam Dist.

2. Income Tax Officer Ward2, Khammam

3. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals), Vijayawada

4. Commissioner of Income-tax, Vijayawada

5. Departmental Representative, ITAT, Hyderabad.

B.V.S