Itta v. Commissioner Of Income Tax - I

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABADFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRAPRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. NO.405 OF 2014 DATED:5.9.2014 Between: Broadridge Financial Solutions (India) Private LimitedCompany incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956And having its registered office at Survey No.64, Hitech CitySerilingampally, Rangareddy DistrictHyderabad … Appellant And Commissioner of Income Tax-IAayakar BhawanBasheerbaghHyderabad … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA ANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. NO.405 OF 2014 JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and issuedpre-admission notice on 24.7.2014. After hearing both the learned counsel, we admit the appeal onthe following substantial question of law. “Whether the learned Tribunal is justified in deciding the matteron merit on one point while refusing to decide the matter on merit onanother point ?” It was recorded by the learned Tribunal that the assessee hasnot raised any specific objection with regard to the following issue. Whether findings of Dispute Resolution Panel on allowability ofdeduction of expenditure incurred for setting up cost on the newpremises are sustainable or not? Actually, this issue was raised before the Tribunal by theappellant. However, it has been erroneously recorded that there is nofinding by the DRP on the said issue. While observing this, theTribunal decided the matter on another point on merit, in the manneras follows. The record shows that the assessee was incorporated as acompany on 17-1-2007 and as per the note No.14 of the annual reportof the company it has been clearly mentioned that the assesseecompany has commenced its operations from 1[st] April, 2007. Hence, the assessee cannot claim any exemption for prior period expenses. We think that the learned Tribunal should not have done so. We,therefore, set aside this order. We remand the matter on the limitedissue as mentioned in paragraph 11 of the judgment of the Tribunaland it shall be decided in accordance with law on merit within a periodof two months from the date of communication of this order. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. ________________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ _______________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 5.9.2014bnr