ASHRAFUNNISA BEGUM,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1167/HYD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 February 2021AY 2010-117 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing appeals for two assessees, finding their reasons justifiable. Subsequently, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of all appeals as the assessees had opted for the 'Vivad Se Viswas' scheme.

What were the facts?

Several assessees filed appeals before the ITAT, some with significant delays. The assessees sought to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the 'Vivad Se Viswas' scheme.

What were the issues?

Whether the delays in filing appeals were justifiable and whether the assessees could withdraw their appeals to avail the 'Vivad Se Viswas' scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD

Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

For Appellant: Shri Phanidra Kumar (iii) Shri, Shri K.C
Hearing: 21/01/2021Pronounced: 02/02/2021

Assessment Year: 2013-14 Leo Laminates Pvt Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Hyderabad. Income Tax, PAN: AAACL 2456 L Circle-16(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: (i) T. Chaitanya Kumar (ii) Shri Phanidra Kumar (iii) Shri Mohd. Afzal (iv) Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue by: (i) Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 21/01/2021 Date of pronouncement: 02/02/2021 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.:

All these appeals are filed by the assessees, aggrieved by the respective orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad / Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad.

2.

At the outset, Ld. ARs for the assessee’s in the cases of M/s. Demi Realtors and Hari Gopal Reddy Pinnpu submitted that there is a delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal of 27 days in and 400 days in ITA No.777/Hyd/2019. Ld. ARs further submitted that the assessees had filed affidavits seeking condonation of delay wherein the reasons for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit was explained. For reference, the relevant portion from the affidavit is extracted herein below:-

Sl of the Delay in Reasons given for condonation of No assessee No. Of delay Days 1. 466/H/17 M/s. Demi 1. … Realtors, 27 days 2. .. Hyderabad. 3. .. 4. .. 5. ..

6.

No sooner than the appellate order cited above was received on 13/12/2016, I tried contacting my auditors M/s. S.P. Associates at Chennai for follow up action thereon.

7.

I could reach then only sometime after Christmas during which time I was advised to send the papers after one month since they were preoccupied with the dislocation on account of Cyclone as well as workload due to demonetization of High Value Currency, for giving guidance to their clients.

8.

However, due to financial and other pressures on account of several Income Tax Appeals relating to Demi Realtors and myself, I had misplaced the order of CIT (A) in the voluminous papers kept in the litigation files and could not readily trace the same.

9.

I traced the appellate order in the file folder relating Miscellaneous Application filed for Demi Realtors In M.A No. 3/4/2017 arising out of ITA No. 649/Hyd/2013 for AY 2008-09 on 06th March, 2017 and immediately took steps to send theh relevant papers to our tax consultant at Chennai, on the advice of my auditors M/s. S.P. Associates at Chennai.

10.

The papers were received by the office of Shri J. Prabhakar, Chartered Accountant at Chennai on 8/3/2017 and the consequential grounds of appeal

s before the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was made ready and e- mailed to me on 9/3/2017.

11. Paid the Institutional Fees of Rs. 500/- on 10/03/2017, signed the appeal papers with a counter signature of Shri J. Prabhakar in Form 36, who visited Hyderabad on that day to argue the Miscellaneous Application aforesaid posted for hearing before Hon’ble A Bench there at.

12. Filed the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 10/03/2017.

13. There is a delay of 27 days on account of the above circumstances, which occurred due to oversight and mental pressure on account of huge demand of Rs. 100 Crs pending adjudication in the cases of the appellant and my personal assessments.

14. In view of the above, it is humbly requested that no contumacious conduct be attributed to the delay aforesaid and the delay of 27 days be condoned and appeal be taken up for disposal on merits of the case. 2. 777/H/19 Hari Gopal 400 1. …….when the appeal was pending Reddy Pinnu days before Ld CIT (A), the Pr. CIT-1, by virtue of the powers vested in him passed an order U/s. 263 of the IT Act on 9th February directing the AO to re-do the assessment, and the same is pending before the Ld. CIT (A).

2. When the same was discussed with an Advocate, he advised that an appeal lies against the order passed by the Pr. CIT U/s. 263 of the IT Act. Therefore, the petitioner is filing the present appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT. There is a delay of 400 days and the petitioner humbly submits that he was under the bonafide belief that no appeal need be filed contesting the order U/s. 263 of the IT Act. The petitioner humbly submits that the delay is for the reasons submitted above and is not intentional. The petitioner, therefore, prays the Hon’ble ITAT to kindly condone the delay and pass appropriate orders in the matter.

On perusal of the affidavits filed by the assessees explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal of 27 days and 400 days in the cases of M/s. Demi Realtors and Hari Gopal Reddy Pinnpu respectively, We are of the view that the reasons stated herein above are justifiable and satisfactory in order to condone the delay in both the cases. Therefore, in the interest of justice, We hereby condone the delay of 27 days and 400 days in the cases of M/s. Demi Realtors and Hari Gopal Reddy Pinnpu respectively in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to hear the appeal on merits.

2. All the above mentioned assessees have filed written submissions before us seeking withdrawal of their appeals as they have opted to avail ‘Vivad Se Viswas’ scheme. It is further submitted that the assessees have filed Form No.1 & 2 in all these cases and also received Form-3 from the Revenue in certain cases. Hence, it is prayed in the written submissions that the appeals of the assessees may be allowed to be withdrawn and dismissed as such.

3.

The Ld. DR conceded to the request of the assessees and their Counsels.

4.

Having heard both the parties through video conference, We are inclined to allow the appeals of the assessees to be withdrawn yielding to the prayer of the Ld. ARs as the assessees have preferred to avail the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme by filing Form No.1, 2 in all the instant cases and in some cases the assessees have also received Form No-3 from the Revenue. The Ld. DR has also conceded to the request of the Ld. ARs. Accordingly, We hereby dismiss the appeals of the assessees as withdrawn. However, we also make it clear that, if any of the assessee’s cases are not accepted in the Vivad-Se-Viswas scheme by the Revenue for whatsoever may be the reason, then the respective assessees shall be at liberty to file Miscellaneous Petitions before the Tribunal within the time limit prescribed under the Act to reinstate their appeal. It is ordered accordingly.

5.

In the result, all the above-mentioned appeals of the assessees are dismissed as withdrawn.

Pronounced in the open Court on the second of February, 2021.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →