Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH ‘B, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1241/Hyd/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Radon Energy Ltd., vs. Income-tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 3(2), Hyderabad. PAN – AAECR 8185L Appellant Respondent Assessee by: Shri G. Kalyan Das Revenue by: Smt. M. Narmada Date of hearing: 14/10/2019 Date of pronouncement: 18/10/2019 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) – 3, Hyderabad, dated, 07/03/2018 for AY 2013-14.
Briefly the facts of the case are that assessee company, engaged in the business of manufacturing of Aluminium wires filed its return of income for the AY 2013-14 on 30/09/2013 admitting total income of Rs. Nil. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS on AST and the same was converted into scrutiny by issuing statutory notices u/s 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act. The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act by making disallowances of Rs. 6,098/- towards interest on TDS and Rs. 1,20,36,934/-.
2 I.T.A. No. 1241/Hyd/18 Radon Energy Ltd., Hyd. 4. Aggrieved with the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the appeal was filed on 26/04/2016 in paper format and not e-filed.
The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in- limine on the ground that the assessee has not filed the appeal electronically, which is mandatory as per Circular No. 20/2016 dated 26th May, 2016.
Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal: Grounds of Appeal
“1. The order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) is contrary to law and the facts. 2. The ld. CIT(A) is not correct in passing ex-party orders, on the alleged ground that the appellant had not attended hearing of the appeal. 3. The ld. CIT(A) is not correct in law in dismissing appeal ex-party merely because the appellant had not E- filed the Appeal. 4. The ld. CIT(A) ought to have noted, appellant had filed appeal in Paper Form within the time and the appeal should have been disposed off on merits based on paper form. 5. The ld. CIT(A) erred in holding, appeal since is not filed in E-form, is required to be dismissed without providing opportunity to the appellant to file appeal electronically for disposal. 6. The ld. CIT(A) ought to have held where appeal is not filed in E-form, the appeal should be treated as Defective and provided an opportunity to cure the defect. 7. The ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate, the appellant did not file appeal in E-form due to ignorance of Circulars.
3 I.T.A. No. 1241/Hyd/18 Radon Energy Ltd., Hyd. 8. In the above facts and circumstances appellant prays, natural justice requires appellant should have been given an opportunity to rectify the defect in filing appeal electronically. 9. Without prejudice to the above, appellant submits in compliance, it had produced Books of Account, filed audited accounts, Form 3CD and their Reports and Vouchers for verification before the ld. AO which did not warrant any additions. 10.The ld. AO erred in holding, appellant could not explain correctness of payments made to sub- contractors Rs. 237.071akhs and thereupon disallowing an adhoc amount on estimate at 25% Rs. 59,26,785/-. 11.The ld. AO also erred in holding that payments made to some sub-contractors not confirmed/partly confirmed and thereby disallowing Rs. 46,03,339/- is bad in law. 12.The ld. AO further erred in holding, there is a difference in payments made to sub-contractors and thereby disallowing Rs. 15,06,811/- is bad in law. 13.In the above facts and circumstances, the aggregate addition Rs. 120.37 lakhs made by the ld. AO is based on conjectures, surmises and suspicion and not based on the material on record and therefore the assessment order requires to be cancelled and vacated. 14.The ld. AO is not correct in disallowing Interest on TDS Rs. 6098/-. 15.F or these and other grounds that may be urged, the appellant prays that the impugned orders be vacated and in any event opportunity of being heard be provided.” 7. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on technical grounds i.e. the assessee has not filed the appeal electronically and decided without going into the merits of the case.
7.1 On perusal of the Circular No. 20/2016, all the assessees are advised to file the e-appeal and whoever filed manual appeal, they can file e-appeal before 15/06/2016 in
4 I.T.A. No. 1241/Hyd/18 Radon Energy Ltd., Hyd. order to treat the same as filed within time. We observe that this is compliance advise and the assessees who are filing the e-appeal subsequent to 15/06/2016, they will be treated as appeal filed belatedly. Therefore, CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeal in-limine, rather, he should have asked the assessee to comply with the directions as per Circular No. 20/2016 and he could have given one more opportunity to assessee to e-file the appeal. We are not satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee not to e-file the appeal. As per the CBDT Circular No. 20/2016, all the appeals have to be e-filed. Therefore, we direct the Assessee to file the appeal through e-filing and direct the CIT(A) to accept the e-appeal afresh and adjudicate the matter on merit. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 18th October, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (V. DURGA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 18th October, 2019. kv Copy forwarded to: 1. M/s Radon Energy Ltd., C/o M/s Kalyandas & co., CAs. 15, Venkateshwara Colony, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad – 500 029.. 2. ITO, Ward – 3(2), Hyderabad. 3. CIT(A) - 3, Hyderabad 4. Pr. CIT – 3, Hyderabad 5. The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 6. Guard File