आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ म(cid:581)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER &

SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 751/Hyd/2014 (

(cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रण वष(cid:91)

/ Assessment Year: 2009-10)

Income Tax Officer, M/s. Lanco Hills Technology Park Ward-16(1), Vs. (P) Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad.

[PAN: AABCL1228R]

/ Appellant / Respondent अपीलाथ(cid:568) (cid:292)× यथ(cid:568)

/Assessee by: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, AR (cid:467)नधा(cid:91)(cid:464)रती (cid:622)वारा

/Revenue by: Mrs. M. Narmada, CIT-DR राजè व (cid:622)वारा

/Date of hearing: 02/01/2025 सुनवाई क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख घोषणा क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख /Pronouncement on: 23/01/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M:

Aggrieved by the order dated 31/12/2013 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Hyderabad (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of M/s. Lanco Hills Technologies Park (P) Ltd, Hyderabad (“the assessee”), the Revenue preferred this appeal for the AY 2009-10.

2. Brief facts of the case, as could be culled out from the record, are that the assessee is deriving income from the business activity of real estate and property development. Assessee filed its return of income on 29/09/2009 declaring an income of Rs. 8,65,65,355/-. Subsequently, it revised its Return of Income from time to time, namely, on 04/05/2010 and 01/09/2010 revising the income to Rs. 14,68,17,832/- and Rs. 5,21,00,400/- respectively, and lastly on 06/06/2011 declaring Nil income. In the third and fourth Returns of Income the gross sales were shown as Rs. 90,76,13,532/- as against the originally mentioned amount of Rs. 157,44,46,961/- in first and second Return of Income’s. Vide order dated 29/12/2010 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), the learned Assessing Officer considered the income of Rs. 14,68,17,832/- as shown in the second ROI filed on 04/05/2010, and ignored the third and fourth Returns of Income’s filed on 01/09/2010 and

06/06/2011, respectively.

3. Aggrieved of the action of learned Assessing Officer in not considering the later returns of income and considering the earlier ROI, assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A), and the learned CIT(A) after considering all the contentions of the assessee, and the learned CIT(A) allowed the same by order dated 31/12/2013, observing that the assessing officer is duty bound to adjudicate upon the claim of the assessee, even though the revised return is filed after the prescribed time u/s 139(5) but before the completion of the assessment. On this premise, the learned CIT(A) quashed the assessment. Hence this appeal by the Revenue, contending that the non-consideration of the he decisions of Gauhati High Court in the case of Sunanda Ram Deka vs CIT (Gau) 220 ITR 988 and Delhi High Court in the case of Golden Insulation and Engineering Limited vs CIT(Del) 305 ITR 427 by the learned CIT(A) is bad under law.

4. Learned DR vehemently supported the assessment order stating that the reason for filing of revised ROI is stated to be the economic slowdown. He submitted that the price of SFT was reduced from Rs. 4520/- per sft to Rs. 3000/- per sft and the revision is not on account of claim of any deduction/exemption or any omission or wrong statement. According to him, the revision of income because of revision of accounts under Companies Act is highly objectionable, and as per scheme of taxation, preparation of accounts one for Companies Act and other for Income Tax Act is not permissible. learned DR, therefore, places heavy reliance on the observations of the learned Assessing Officer and submits that the original return of income dated 29/09/2009 and revised return dt. 04/05/2010 were filed as per the annual results and audited books of accounts since the sales declared in these returns are same, whereas in the subsequent return filed on 01/09/2010, the assessee reduced the sales from