Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD
Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1274/Hyd/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & S.A. No. 78/Hyd/2019 (Arising out of ITA No.1274/Hyd/2018) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Sanvi Infra Projects Vs. JCIT (OSD), Private Limited, Circle-3(1), (Formerly known as M/s. Hyderabad. Sanvi Builders Private Limited, #8-2- 686/D/B/22/1, Plot No.22, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 34. PAN: AABCE 7161 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani Revenue by: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR Date of hearing: 28/06/2019 Date of pronouncement: 03/07/2019 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.:
The above captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad dated 08/06/2016 in Appeal No.372/JCIT-CIT(A)-3(1)/CIT(A)-3/2011-12 passed u/s 143(3) & 250(6) of the Act for the assessment year 2009-10.
The assessee has also filed Stay Application seeking stay from recovery of the outstanding demand of Rs. 2,47,32,030/- for the assessment year 2009-10.
At the outset, Learned Counsel for the Assessee mentioned that there is a delay of 617 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He drew our attention to the condonation petition along with the affidavit filed by the assessee and pointed out the contents of para 8 of the condonation petition. The same is extracted hereinunder for the sake of convenience and reference:-
“8. Subsequent to the order of the first appellate authority, the appellant ought to had filed an appeal within 60 days from the receipt of the order i.e, 05/08/2016. However, the appellant could not file the appeal within the specified period of 60 days as the appellant had not paid self-assessment tax, the appellant was also called and interrogated by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The appellant was suffering with huge financial difficulties and could not pay the amount of self-assessment tax. Finally the appellant could pay the self-assessment tax on 13/03/2018, 29/03/2018, 06/04/2018 and 17/04/2018. The appellant was under the impression that the appeal will be heard by the Ld. CIT(A) after payment of self-assessment tax. The appellant consulted the present Counsel and handed over the brief to be represented before the Ld. CIT(A). After noticing that the order of the appeal has already been passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad, dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant, the present Counsel expressed that an appeal is required to be filed as against the order of the first appellate authority. Soon after obtaining the professional advice from the present Counsel the appellant within a reasonable time has filed this present appeal before this Hon’ble Tribunal.”
On perusal of the above submissions of the assessee, we are 4. of the considered view that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed time limit as one of the Director dealing with the relevant matters was undergoing investigation by the CBI and was
fully occupied with the proceedings of the Central Bureau of Investigation. Therefore, in our opinion there is a sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay of 617 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal by the assessee-company and therefore it is a fit case to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and we proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits.
At the outset, Learned Counsel for the Assessee briefly narrated the facts of the case that the assessee is a Pvt Ltd Company engaged in the business of Construction filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2009- 10 declaring total income of Rs. 1,64,04,030/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed U/s. 143(3) of the Act wherein the Ld. A.O. made certain disallowances viz., (i) disallowance of Rs. 2,93,50,000/- U/s. 68 of the Act towards ‘unexplained cash credits’; (ii) disallowance of Rs. 2,48,18,290/- on account of ‘unexplained share application’ money and (iii) disallowance of Rs. 83,90,309/- towards ‘interest paid’ and the assessed income was determined at Rs. 7,89,62,629/-.
Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, before the Ld. CIT(A) none appeared on behalf of the assessee to represent its case and therefore Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex- parte by holding that the assessee has not paid the self-assessment tax.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now on appeal before us.
At the outset, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-payment of self-assessment tax and the appeal was not adjudicated on merits. It was further submitted that subsequently the assessee had paid the self- assessment tax. Therefore, Learned Counsel for the Assessee prayed that assessee may be granted one more opportunity to argue its case before the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld DR on the other hand vehemently argued in support of the order of the Ld CIT (A) and prayed for dismissing the appeal of the assessee.
Having heard both the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that in the interest of justice the assessee should be provided with one more opportunity of being heard before the Ld. CIT (A) as the self-assessment tax is paid which is not disputed by the Ld. Revenue Authorities. Accordingly, we remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with directions to adjudicate the appeal on merits after granting the assessee reasonable opportunities of being heard. The assessee is also directed to co-operate with the Ld. CIT(A) in his proceedings promptly for speedy disposal of the appeal, failing which the Ld CIT (A) shall pass
appropriate order in accordance with merit and law based on the materials before him.
Since the appeal of the assessee is adjudicated as above, the Stay Application filed by the assessee does not survive.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Court on 03rd July, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated:03/07/2019 OKK Copy to:- 1) M/s. Sanvi Infra Projects Private Limited, (Formerly known as M/s. Sanvi Builders Private Limited, #8-2-686/D/B/22/1, Plot No.22, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 34. 2) JCIT (OSD), Circle-3(1), Hyderabad 3) The CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad. 4) The Pr. CIT-3, Hyderabad. 5) The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 6) Guard File