HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA 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 Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 And having its registered office at Survey No.64, Hitech City Serilingampally, Rangareddy District Hyderabad … Appellant And Commissioner of Income Tax-I Aayakar Bhawan Basheerbagh Hyderabad … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE 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 issued pre-admission notice on 24.7.2014.
After hearing both the learned counsel, we admit the appeal on the following substantial question of law.
“Whether the learned Tribunal is justified in deciding the matter on merit on one point while refusing to decide the matter on merit on another point ?”
It was recorded by the learned Tribunal that the assessee has not raised any specific objection with regard to the following issue.
Whether findings of Dispute Resolution Panel on allowability of deduction of expenditure incurred for setting up cost on the new premises are sustainable or not?
Actually, this issue was raised before the Tribunal by the appellant. However, it has been erroneously recorded that there is no finding by the DRP on the said issue. While observing this, the Tribunal decided the matter on another point on merit, in the manner as follows.
The record shows that the assessee was incorporated as a company on 17-1-2007 and as per the note No.14 of the annual report of the company it has been clearly mentioned that the assessee company has commenced its operations from 1st 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 limited issue as mentioned in paragraph 11 of the judgment of the Tribunal and it shall be decided in accordance with law on merit within a period of 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 5.9.2014 bnr