Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” , HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR, HON’BLE & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.298/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Progressive Constructions Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 16(2), Limited, Hyderabad. #7th Floor, Raghava North Block, Raghava Ratna Towers, Chirag Ali Lane, Abids – 500001, Hyderabad. PAN : AABCP2274M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani, CA. Revenue by: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 02.07.2024 Date of pronouncement: 04.07.2024
O R D E R PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.
This appeal is filed by M/s. Progressive Constructions Limited (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 31.01.2024 for the A.Y. 2018-19.
2 ITA No.298/Hyd/2024
“1. The impugned order of the learned Authorities below in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case. 2. The Appellant denies himself liable to be assessed on a total loss of an amount being Rs. 2,10,93,157/-, as against the loss returned an amount being Rs. 17,92,01,085/-, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Whether the learned Authorities below are justified in disallowing Rs. 15,62,15,400/- claimed as bad debts by the Appellant in the financial statements, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Whether the learned Authorities below are justified in disallowing Rs. 15,62,15,400/- claimed as bad debts by the Appellant and admissible under section 36[1][vii] of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Whether the learned Authorities below are correct in disallowing the bad debts claimed by the Appellant on percentage on the basis of increase in turnover, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Whether the learned Authorities below are justified in disallowing Rs. 18,92,488/-, as interest on delayed payment of tax deducted at source, even when the amount was not debited to profit and loss account, under the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Facts of the case, in brief, are that assessee company, engaged in the business of civil constructions, filed return of income for A.Y.2018-19 on 31.10.2018 for A.Y. 2018-19 declaring loss of Rs.17,92,01,085/-. The learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) reducing the at loss of Rs. 2,10,93,157/- by order dated 08.04.2021.
Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the assessing officer, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of assessee due to delay in filing the appeal and also on merits.
3 ITA No.298/Hyd/2024
Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us.
Before us, Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has failed to provide necessary information before the Ld. CIT(A) to substantiate its case and the assessee failed to file application for condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A) for certain reasons. The learned AR further submitted that the assessee does not stand to gain by allowing the appeal to be disposed of without any documentary evidence being produced and it is only due to the reasons beyond the control of the assessee, the assessee could not produce the documents. By consolidating all the grounds, he further submitted that given an opportunity, the assessee is now ready to produce all such details and conduct the proceedings diligently and get the matter disposed of on merits.
Per contra, learned DR placed heavy reliance on the orders of the authorities below, and submitted that sufficient opportunity has already been given by the authorities, but the assessee failed to avail the same. He opposed the grant of further opportunity to the assessee.
4 ITA No.298/Hyd/2024
We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record and also the orders passed by the lower authorities. On perusal of the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A), we found that Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non-filing of application for condonation of delay and also on merits. From paragraph 4.1 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), it is evident that the assessee was non- responsive continuously and made no effort to rebut the arguments of the Assessing Officer. Thus, the assessee has failed to prove its case before the lower authorities even after granting several opportunities. However, in our view, the ends of justice will be met, if the matter is remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A). Hence, we remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the issue after considering the documents available on record and affording the opportunities of hearing to the assessee in accordance with law subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousands only) in favour of Prime Minister National Relief Fund which shall be payable within one month from the date of receipt of this order .
The assessee is also directed to file application for condonation of delay and produce all the relevant documents to prove its case. The Ld. CIT(A) shall examine all those documents / evidences filed by the assessee and any other documents which may be filed by the assessee, as well as any other documents that may be filed as additional evidence. Furthermore, we direct the Ld.
5 ITA No.298/Hyd/2024
CIT(A) that, if he is satisfied with the reasons given by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal before him, then he shall decide the issue in accordance with the law and subsequently pass a detailed speaking order addressing the contentions of the assessee. Needless to say, we have not adjudicated on any other ground; all grounds are required to be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) in the remand proceedings. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 4th July, 2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (LALIET KUMAR) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Hyderabad, dated 04.07.2024. TYNM/sps
6 ITA No.298/Hyd/2024
Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Progressive Constructions Limited, #7th Floor, Raghava North Block, Raghava Ratna Towers, Chirag Ali Lane, Abids – 500001, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 16(2), Hyderabad. 3 Pr.CIT, Hyderabad. 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order