M/s Annapurna Business Solutions V. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

ITTA/44/2020

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad. The appellant, Annapurna Business Solutions, contested the revisionary order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, which added a significant amount as unexplained investment in gold and silver jewelry following a search and seizure operation. The Tribunal initially dismissed the appeal due to a delay in filing, which was later contested by the appellant on grounds of a bona fide misunderstanding of the need to challenge only the consequential order and not the revisional order. The High Court, referencing the principles laid down in N.Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, found merit in the appellant's explanation for the delay and allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's earlier order and remitting the matter for fresh consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 753489 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: N.Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Wealth Tax Act, 1957, Limitation Act, 1963
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B NARASIMHA SARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: A V A SIVA KARTIKEYA
• Keywords: Assessment Year; Condonation of delay; Income Tax; Revisional Authority; Search and seizure
• Section: 143(3); 143(2); 263; 260-A

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 44OF 2020 (lnconre\"fax Tribunal Appeal Uncler Section 260-A of the Incotne Tax Act, l96l against the order of the lncorne Tax Appellate Tribunal. llyderabatl Bench' B ', Hyderabacl in ITANo.g1iHydl20l6lorAssessrtentYear,20ll.12c.lated25-10-20t9pt.elemecl against the Ol'cler of the Deputy Commissioner of Incotne Tax' Central Circle -3 Hvderabacl clated 3l-12-2015 in PAN No' AACFA5343Q ' The Deoutv commissioner of lncome Tax, central -c^ilc!-e - 2(1 )' Aayakar Bhavan' il\"po\"i\" i'B siriirr. erir,\"\"rbagh, Hvderabad - 500 004' Between: [//s Annapurna Business Solutions, Suit No 40l' ^[MCH No iuiriii i't'lrfriv,\" { plunu, Besumpet, Hvderabad - 500 01 6' AND Counsel for the Appellant: SRI A' V' A' SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the ResPondent: - The Court made the following: JUDGMENT 6-3-866/A, Maheshwarl ...APPELLANT .,,RESPONDENT 'THE HONOURABLE SI{T.JUSTICE M'S'RAMACHANDRA RAO 1'HE }IONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.44 of2020 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao) Heard leamed counsel for appellant and Sri B'Narasimha Sarma. learned Special Senior Counsel for Central Taxes It is stated by counsel on either side that the issue raised in this appeal is covered by the judgment dt' l 3-08-2020 in I'T'T'A No'20 of :020 Therefbre fbr rcasons alike, this appeal is also allorved; the impugned order dt.25-10-2019 passed by the tncome Tax Appellatc Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'B' in I.T A'No'97 llHyd2016 is set aside; and the matter is remitted back to the said Tribunal for fresh consideration in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in I.T.T.A.No.2O of 2020. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closcd. ,TRUE COPY// AND Sd/.B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JorNr T2ijrRAR SECTION OFFICER l. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal' Hyderabad Bench ' B \" Hvtlerabad' ,r-:--r^ 1,r, A.,rr.,,rr. , iil;B$i,;y Commissioner of lncome Tax',Central Circle-2(1)' Avakar Bhawan' Opp: L.B'staaiu*, notnttrbagh' Hyderabad-500004 . ;;i;';ii; 6fiin. v. n srnA xnirtxEvn' Advocate [oPUCl 4. Two C.D.CoPies To HIGH COURT MSRJ & TVKJ DATED:2010112021 JUDGMENT ITTA.No.44 ot 2020 ITTA AI,I-OWED AND I 4ATTEII IIEMITTED TO TRIBUNAL '.: lot )PU 2421 EB F 1 0 q, '( o ^y/ gvg HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO AND HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD I.T.T.A. No.20 of2020 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao) This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, l96l (for short 'the Act') challenging the order dt.25-10-2019 in I.T.A.No.98/Hydl20l6 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyclerabad Branch 'A', Hyder.abad (for short 'the Tribunal,). 2. The appellant is an individual assessee under the Act. 3. A search and seizure rvas conducted in the case of the appellant on l6-09-2010, and a norice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the appellant for the Assessment Year 2011-12, as the date of search fell within the said Assessment Year. 4. The assessee filed its retum of Income on 01-03-2010, declaring the total income of Rs.67,86,340/-. 5. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the assessee/assessee's authorized representative appeared fiom time to time and a detailed reply was also filed on 05-01-2013 6. The Deputy Commissionet' of lncome'fax, Central Circle-3, Ilyderabad, the then Assessing Ofllcer, vide his order dt.30-03-2013, completed the assessnrent. The income returned r.vas the inconre assessed. No separate additions were made. 1 7 . Later, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)' Hyderabad issued a show cause notice proposing to revise the assessment in terms of Section I 63 of the Act' 8. The Revisional Authority, vide his show cause notice, proposed to make an addition of Rs.1,04,66,134/-, being the total value of gold andsilverjewellery,foundduringthecourseofsearcl.tandseizure proceedings, as unexplained investment in the hands of the Assessee' -fhe Revisional Authority opined that the assessee could not produce any docurnentary evidence during the time of the original assessment and that he was not filing returns under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957' 9. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed a detailed reply on 12-01-2015. In its reply, the assessee submitted that retums under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 wete filed in his individual capacity, and also in the name of T.Jagan Mohan Rao (HUF), T.Annapurna, T.Nanda kishore & T.Saritha (i.e. his HUF & family members) for the Assessment Year 2011-12. Further, personal affidavits ol his family members were also enclosed to the reply. Apan from that, detailed statements of the purchases made by his family members, both within and outside India, were furnished. 10. It is contended by the appellant that brushing aside the submissions of the assessee, the Revisional Authority cornpleted the revision and passed an order under Section 263 ofthe Act on 10-03- 2015 setting aside the well considered order of the Assessing Officer' The Revisional Authority directed the Assessing Officer to redo the MSR,J & TA,J itta 20 2020 3 MSR,J & TA,J ilra ?0,2020 assessment atter \"making detailed enquiries and investigation\"' He was of the opinion that the Assessing Olhcer ought to have nlade 'further enquiries', before accepting the statements made by the assessee at the time of assessment' The Revisional Authority did not consider the separate retums under the Wealth Tax Act' 1957 and the affidavits and other material filed by the family members of the assessee. I l. The Assessing Officer, vide his order dt'31-12-2015' completed the assessment once again, under Section 143(3) r/w 263 of the Act, in tune with the order of the Revisional Authority' 12. Questioning the order of the Revisional Authority dt.l0-03-2015, an appeal was filed before the Tribunal by the assessee/appellant on 29-01 -201 6' 13. The assessee contends that he approached his counsel only after the receipt ofthe consequential order passed by the Assessing Officer on 31-12-2015; that he was under abonafid'e but erroneous view that an appeal to be filed challenging only the consequential order and not to the Revisional Order; and that only after he approached his counsel' it was realized that an appeal ought to have been filed challenging the Revision Authority's order dt' l0-3-201 5 also' |4.SotheITTAwasfiledwithadelayofl54daysbeforethe Tribunal on 29-01-2016, along with a petition to condone the delay in tiling the same under sec.5 of the Limitation Act' 1963' 4 MSR.J & TA,J i(a 20 2020 15. The Tribunal,- by the impugned order dt.25-10-2019 in I.T.A.No.98/Hydl2016 dismissed the appeal on the ground that assessee failed to establish that it was prevented by a sufficient cause lbr not liling the appeal in time. 16. Chaltenging the same, the instant appeal is filed. 17. Learned counsel for appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in not condoning the delay of 154 days in filing the appeal I.T.A.No.98/Hydl20l6 before the Tribunal; that the assessee was under the bona fide impression that the appeal is required to be filed challenging only the consequential order dt.31-12-2015 and not against the Revisional Order dt.10-03-2015; and only after the assessee approached the counsel, the appellant was advised that it was necessary to challenge the Revisional Authority order also, and thus the delay of 154 days in flrling the appeal occurred. 18. Learned counsel for appellant also contended that the Tribunal ered in holding that the explanation offered by the assessee lbr the delay in filing the appeal was not bonafide. 19. Sri B.Narasimha Sarma, learned Senior Special Counsel tbr Central Taxes appearing for respondents, however, supported the order passed by the Tribunal, and contended that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application for condonation ofdelay. 20. We have noted the contentions of both sides. N4SR.J & I'A,J irra 20 2020 21. The reasoning assigned by the assessee lor not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation to the Tribunal was that he rvas under the mistaken impression that only the consequential order passed by the Assessing Officer on 3l-12-2015 was required to be challenged and not the order dt.l0-03-2015 of the Revisional Authority, and that only after he consulted the Advocate, he realized the mistake and then challenged the order of the Revisional Authority. 22. The Tribunal took the view that the appellant ought to have explained why after receiving the order from the Revisional Authority he did not approach the Advocate, and held that he cannot say that only after he received the order of the Assessing Officer on 31-12- 2015, he approached the Advocate. 23. In our opinion, this view is not reasonable for the reason that the assessee is an individual and may not be well versed in law. It is not as if the appellant acted deliberately in not approaching the Advocate after he received the order of the Revisional authority. 24. The Revisional Authority had remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to redo the exercise of assessment and the appellant could very well be under the impression that the consequential order of the Assessing Officer only required to be challenged and not the order of the Revisional Authority. 25. The assessee is entitled to question the order passed by the Revisional Authority also on the ground that powers of Revision J 6 under section 263 of the Act ought not to have been invoked in tl.re facts and circumstances of the case and contend before the Tribunal that the order ofthe Assessing Officer cannot be said to be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue even if it is erroneous particularly where two views are possible. The f'ribunal ought to have atleast imposed some costs on the appellant in the event it was of the opinion that the said period of delay was not properly explained in view of the possible prejudice caused to the appellant if the appeal were to be dismissed . 26. The Supreme Court in N.Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthyr has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parlies and to advance substantial j ustice; and that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties, but they are meant to see that pafties do not resoft to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. It held that there is no presumption that delay in approaching the Court is always deliberate, and the words \"sufficient cause,, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. It held that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concemed, but that alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him; and if the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory ' ircss1 r scc tz: MSR,] & TA,J itta 20_2020 MSR,J & TA,J tua-20 2020 strategy, the Court must show ufmost consideration to the suitor. It also observed that iithe delayis deriberate, then the court shourd nor accept the explanation. It held that while condoning rhe delay, the Courl should compensate the opposite party with costs. 27. Applying the principles laid down in the above case to the instant case, we are of the opinion that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the explanation for the delay offered by the appellant cannot be said to smack of malafides or that it was put fbrth as a part of a dilatory strategy, and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay of said period of 154 days in filing the I.T.A. and taken up the matter on merits. 28. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed; the order dt.25_10_2}lg passed by the Tribunal in I.T.A.No.9S lHydl20l6 for the assessmenr year 201 l- l2 is set aside; the application for condonarion of delay in filing the said appeal stands allowed; and the said appeal is restor.ecl to trle ofthe Tribunal; and the Tribunal shall hear and decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. No costs. 29. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. M-S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J Date: 13-08-2020 Vsv T.AMARNATH GOUD, J "