Is amount received as reimbursement of expenses reflected as an Income in Form 26AS?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Hyderabad has reviewed a case where an assessee argued that a significant amount received from APIIC, reflected in Form 26AS, was merely a reimbursement of expenses and not taxable income. The Tribunal noted that the lower appellate authority's order was passed ex-parte and questioned whether proper hearing notices were served. Consequently, the case has been restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to present their case with supporting documents.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE)

BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A. No. 1601/HYD/2016

Assessment Year: 2011-12
TSI Business Parks
(Hyderabad) Private Limited,
HYDERABAD
[PAN: AACCT4067B]
(Appellant) 

Vs

Dy.Commissioner of
Income Tax-2(3),
HYDERABAD
(Respondent)

For Assessee : Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AR
For Revenue : Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR

Date of Hearing : 28-04-2021
Date of Pronouncement : 14-06-2021

O R D E R

PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. :

This assessee’s appeal for AY.2011-12 arises from the CIT(A)-2, Hyderabad’s order dated 29-07-2016 passed in case No.0181/2014-15, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 

2. The assessee has proposed the following substantive ground in the instant appeal :

“1. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the Assessing Officer having accepted the fact that the amount of Rs. 3,25,40,208/-received from APIIC has been properly accounted for in the books, the addition may be deleted.

2. The CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer erred in law and facts of the case in considering reimbursement of expenses of Rs. 3,25,40,208/- received from APIIC as income and erroneously made addition of the same.

3. Your Appellant submits that the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer on suspicion, assumption, presumptions and surmises that added the amount of Rs.3,25,40,208/-, reflected in the Fonn26AS has to be considered as income, ignoring the fact that the amount has been received as reimbursement of expenses & properly recorded in the books of account”.

3. We notice with the able assistance of both the parties that the CIT(A)’s lower appellate order under challenge affirming the Assessing Officer’s action as sole issue of amount of Rs.3,25,40,208/- ; has been passed ex-parte.

4. Learned departmental representative invited our attention to the CIT(A)’s discussion in pg.3 para 4 that the assessee has been afforded adequate opportunities of hearing and he failed to avail the same.

5. We find no merit in the Revenue’s argument since there is no indication in the CIT(A)’s order as to whether the corresponding lower appellate hearing notices had been actually served on the assessee or not? Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance back to the CIT(A) for his afresh appropriate adjudication as per law. The assessee or its  authorised representative shall appear before the CIT(A) on or before 31-10-2021 with all the relevant documents, at its own risk and responsibility, to be followed by three effective opportunities of hearing.

6. This assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14th June, 2021

 Sd/-                                                    Sd/-
 (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU)                 (S.S.GODARA)
 ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                JUDICIAL MEMBER

Hyderabad,
Dated: 14-06-2021