TRANSGENE BIOTEK LIMITED,MEDAK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGA REDDY

We notice at the outset that assessee's instant appeal suffers form 331 days delay in filing. The assessee submitted an application dt.7.5.2018 for condonation of delay and explained the circumstances for impugned delay in filing of the instant appeal. Case law Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, 1987 AIR 1353 (SC) and University of Delhi Vs. Union of India, Civil Appeal No.9488 & 9489/2019 dated 17th Dec., 2019, hold that such a delay; supported by cogent reasons, deserves to be condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that assessee's impugned delay of 331 days is neither intention nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond his control. Case is now taken up for adjudication on merits.

Coming to the assessee's sole substantive grievance that the Pr. CIT hereunder has erred in law and on facts in invoking his 263 revision jurisdiction, both the learned representatives took us to the corresponding detailed discussion under challenge reads as under :

We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival pleadings against and in support of the foregoing revision directions. We find no reason to sustain the same. This is for the sole reason that the learned Pr. CIT’s detailed discussion makes it clear that the assessee’s profit before tax, inclusive of various gains, a sum of Rs.71,25,16,724. And that the section 115JB MAT computation is more than the tax under the normal provisions of the Act. We find that the learned Pr. CIT has nowhere not even indicated as to in what terms the assessee's MAT computation exceeds the normal one so as to exigible to 115JB of the Act. The learned Pr. CIT’s directions qua this sole issue are found to 115JB MAT computation.

Learned CIT-DR further contended during the course of hearing that the impugned revision direction ought to be upheld since the Assessing Officer had not adequately examined the impugned MAT computation issue. On our query, the learned departmental representative has not given satisfactory reply under which limb of 115JB Expl.(1) that the assessee's foreign exchange gain exceed its normal computation. We therefore quote hon'ble apex court land mark decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) that an assessment has to be both erroneous as well as causing prejudicial to the interest of Revenue; simultaneously, so as to be subjected u/s. 263 revision mechanism. We make it clear that there is not even an indication in the learned Pr. CIT’s order under challenge pin-pointing a specific error which could said to have prejudiced to the interest of Revenue. We therefore reverse his order under challenge and restore the impugned assessment dt.31.3.2015 as a necessary corollary.

We lastly acknowledge that although the instant appeals are being decided after a period of 90 days from the date of hearing as per Rule 34(5) of the IT(AT) Rules 1963, the same however, does not apply in the covid lockdown situation as per hon'ble apex court's recent directions dated 27-04-2021 in M.A.No.665/2021 in SM(W)C No.3/2020 'In Re Cognizance for extension of limitation' making it clear that in such cases where the limitation period (including that prescribed for institution as well as termination) shall stand excluded from 14th of March, 2021 till further orders.

This assessee's appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th August, 2021. Sd/- Sd/- (L.P. SAHU) (S.S. GODARA) Accountant Member Judicial Member Hyderabad, Dt.24.08.2021. * Reddy gp Copy to :