ACIT, Circle-2(1), Tirupathi V. Sri Vishnu Cement Ltd (Merged with Zuari Cement Ltd0, Tirupathi

CO 87/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9071 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 25-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M H NAIK
• Assessee Lawyers: A C GANGAIAH
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay
• Section: 43B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA/CO(IN ITA NO.) NO. ASSESSMENT YEAR APPELLANT/CROSS OBJECTOR RESPONDENT 1543/HYD/2010 1544/HYD/2010 1995 - 96 1996 - 97 SHRI VISHNU CEMENTS LTD., (NOW MERGED WITH ZUARI CEMENTS LTD.) BANGALORE, (PAN AACDS 4055 M) ASSTT. COMMISSION - ER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 2(1),TIRUPATI 1618/HYD/2010 1999 - 2010 SHRI VISHNU CEMENTS LTD., (NOW MERGED WITH ZUARI CEMENTS LTD.) BANGALORE, (PAN AACDS 4055 M) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 3(1) HYDERABAD (PRESENTLY WITH ASST COMMISSION - ER OF INCOME - TAX CIR.2(1), TIRUPATI 76/HYD/2011 1997 - 98 SHRI VISHNU CEMENTS LTD., (NOW MERGED WITH ZUARI CEMENTS LTD.) BANGALORE, (PAN AACDS 4055 M) JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX SPECIAL RANGE 4 HYDERABAD (PRESENTLY ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX 2(1) RANGE - 2, TIRUPATI) 669/HYD/2012 1998 - 99 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 2(1), TIRUP ATI SHRI VISHNU CEMENTS LTD.,(NOW MERGED WITH ZUARI CEMENTS LTD.), BANGALORE, (PAN AACDS 4055 M) 490/HYD/2012 1993 - 94 SHRI VISHNU CEMENTS LTD., (MERGED WITH ZUARI CEMENT LTD.), BANGALORE, (PAN AACDS 4055 M) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 3(2) HYDERABAD (NOW WITH ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX 2(1), TIRUPATI CROSS OBJECTION NO.87/HYD/2012 (IN ITA NO.669/ - HYD /2012 ) 1998 - 99 SHRI VISHNU CEMENTS LTD., (MERGED WITH ZUARI CEMENT LTD.), BANGALORE, (PAN AACDS 4055 M) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 2(1), TIRUPATI ITA NO. 1543 /HYD/1 0 AND SIX OTHERS SRI VISHN U CEMENTS LTD., BANGALORE 2 ASSESSEE BY : SHRI A.C.GANGAIAH REVENUE BY : SHRI M.H.NAIK DR DATE OF HEARING 26.09.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11.10.2013 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THERE ARE SEVEN MATTERS IN ALL , IN THIS BUNCH. FIVE OF THEM ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REMAINING TWO BEING THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 - 99 AND CROSS - OBJECTION THEREIN OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND ISSUES INVOLVED IN THES E APPEALS ARE COMMON, THESE MATTERS WERE HEARD TOGETHER, AND THEY ARE BEING DISPOSED OF WITH THIS COMMON ORDER OF THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO.1543/HYD/2010 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995 - 96 ITA NO.1544/HYD/2010 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996 - 97 ITA NO.1618/HYD/2 010 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 - 2000 ITA NO.76/HYD/2011 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997 - 98 2. LET US FIRST TAKE UP THESE FOUR APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITIES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1995 - 96 TO 1997 - 98 AND 1999 - 2000. THESE APPEALS, FILED WITH SUBSTANTIAL DELAY RANGING FROM 3 YEARS, SIX MONTHS AND 21 DAYS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997 - 98(ITA NO.76/HYD/2011) TO 9 YEARS TEN MONTHS AND 20 DAYS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995 - 96(ITA NO.1543/HYD/2010), HAVE BEEN ORIGINALLY DECIDED BY THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 27 TH JULY, 2011. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE FILED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS UNDER S.254(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961, BEING MA NOS.82 TO 85/HYD/2012, WHICH , VIDE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 7.9.2012, H AVE BEEN DISMISSED IN LIMINE ON ACCOUNT OF NON - PROSECUTION BY THE ASSESSEE - APPLICANT . ITA NO. 1543 /HYD/1 0 AND SIX OTHERS SRI VISHN U CEMENTS LTD., BANGALORE 3 3. ON FURTHER MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS , BEING MA NOS.198 TO 201/HYD/2012, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR NON - PROSECUTION OF THE EARLIER MAS , THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 4.1.2013, RECALLED NOT ONLY THE ORDER IN THE EARLIER MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS DATED 7.9.2012 , BUT ALSO THE ORDER DATED 22.7.2011 PASSED BY IT IN THE SE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE . THUS, THESE APP EAL S HAVE COME UP FOR HEARING O NCE AGAIN BEFORE US. 4 . AS NOTED ABOVE, THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL DELAY N THE FILING OF THESE FOUR APPEALS, AND AS SUCH THE PRELIMINARY AND THE MOOT ISSUE THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE WE GO INTO THE MERITS OF THE GOURDS RAISED IN THESE APPEALS RELATES TO THE JUSTIFICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. 5. THE DELAY IN THE FILING OF THESE FOUR APPEALS IS TABULATED BELOW - ITA NO. DUE DATE FOR FILING OF APPEAL ACTUAL DATE OF FILING OF APPEAL NO. DAYS OF DELAY 1543/HYD/2010 08.1 1.2002 10.12.2010 2934 DAYS 1544/HYD/2010 29.01.2001 10.12.2010 3602 DAYS 1618/HYD/2010 26.11.2002 20.12.2010 2946 DAYS 76/HYD/2011 31.07.2007 17.01.2011 1266 DAYS ASSESSEE HAS FILED PETITIONS SEEKING CONDONATION OF THE ABOVE INORDINATE DELAY IN TH E FILING OF THE APPEALS. MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY IS THAT THERE IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROVISIONS OF S.43B OF THE ACT, ON ACCOUNT OF INTRODUCTION EXPLANATION 3C THEREUNDER, AND IT WAS A RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT AND T HIS EXPLANATION HAS BEEN MADE EFFECTIVE FROM 1.4.1989 AND WAS INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2006. IT IS TO AVAIL THE BENEFIT OF THE INSERTION OF EXPLANATION 3C TO S.43B, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THOUGH BELATEDLY. IT I S PLEADED THAT IN VIEW OF THE RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT TO THE PROVISIONS OF S.43B, THE ASSESSEE COULD FILE THE ITA NO. 1543 /HYD/1 0 AND SIX OTHERS SRI VISHN U CEMENTS LTD., BANGALORE 4 APPEALS IN QUESTION ONLY AFTER THE SAID AMENDMENT HAS TAKEN PLACE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2006, WHICH CONSTITUTED A REASONABLE CAUSE AND WARRANTS COND ONATION OF DELAY. 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE CONTRARY, STOUTLY OPPOSED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN THE FILING OF THESE APPEALS. PLACING STRONG RELIANCE ON THE D E CISION OF THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN TH E CASE OF DCIT V/S. JAYA PUBLICATIONS (ITA NOS.1221 TO 1223/MAD/2002 AND 279 TO 281/MDS/2006) DATED 30.11.2007, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LAW ASSISTS ONLY THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THE RIGHTS. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DE CISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE C ASE OF RAMLAL V/S. REWA COALFIELDS LTD. (AIR 1962 SC 361), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL, WHICH BY DUE CARE AND ATTENTION, COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED, CANNOT BE A SUFFICIENT CAUSE WITHI N THE MEANING OF THE LIMITATION PROVISION. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON THE ISSUE OF DELAY IN THE LIGHT OF CASE - LAW ON THE POINT CITED BEFORE US. THE MAIN REASON FOR THE INORDINATE DELAY RUNNING INTO SEVERAL YEARS THAT HAS TAKEN PLAC E IN THE FILING OF THE PRESENT APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE, IS THE RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT TO THE P R OVISION S OF S.43B WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF EXPLANATION 3C WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.1989 BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2006. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE PRESENT APPEALS HA VE BEEN FILED, EVEN BELATEDLY TO AVAIL THE BENEFITS OF THE SAID RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT. EVEN AFTER THE RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT, WHICH HAS BEEN EFFECTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2006, THERE HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIAL DELAY, SINCE THE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION HAV E BEEN FIELD ONLY IN DECEMBER,2010 AND IN JANUARY, 2011, WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT VIGILANT AND NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THE RIGHT. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN THE DICTUM VIGILANTI BUS NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBSVENUINT . A S HELD B Y THE APEX COU R T IN THE CA S E OF RAMLAL V/S. REWA COALFIELDS LTD. (SUPRA), THE CA U SE FOR THE DELAY IN ITA NO. 1543 /HYD/1 0 AND SIX OTHERS SRI VISHN U CEMENTS LTD., BANGALORE 5 THE FILIN G THE APPEAL, WHI C H BY DUE CARE AND ATTENTION, COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED, CANNOT BE A SUFFICIENT CAU S E WITHIN THE MEANING OF TH E LIMITATION PROVISIO N AND AS SUCH IT IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN THE FILING OF THESE APPEALS. 8. IN THE CASE OF JAYA PUBLICATIONS (SUPRA), THE MADRAS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS, CONSIDERING THE INORDINATE DELAY OCCURRING IN THE FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE IT IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, DECLINED TO CONDONE THE DELAY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS - THE COURT HAS TO EXERCISE THE DISCRETION ON THE FACTS OF EACH CASE, KEEPING IN MIND THAT IN CONSIDERING THE EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUSE. IN PRINCIPLE, ADVANCING SU BSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS OF PRIME IMPORTANCE. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATTIGI (167 ITR 471 (SC) THE DELAY WAS ONLY 4 DAYS. IN THE CASE OF VEDABAI ALIA VAIJAYANTABHAI BABURAO PATIL BS. SHANTARAM BABURAO PATIL (2 53 ITR 798) (SC) THE DELAY OF 7 DAYS WAS CONSIDERED. IN THIS CASE, THE HONBLE APEX COURT CLEARLY LAID DOWN THAT A DISTINCTION MUST BE MADE BETWEEN A CASE WHERE THE DELAY IS INORDINATE AND A CASE WHERE THE DELAY IS OF A FEW DAYS. THE LAW ASSISTS THOSE WH O ARE VIGILANT AND NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN THE DICTUM VIGILANT BUS NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBSVENIUNT. THE DELAY CANNOT BE CONDONED IF THE ASSESSEES CASE IS HARD AND CALLS FOR SYMPATHY OR MERELY OUT OF BENEVOL ENCE TO THE PARTY SEEKING RELIEF. IN GRANTING THE INDULGENCE AND CONDONING THE DELAY IT MUST BE PROVED BEYOND THE SHADOW OF DOUBT THAT THE REVENUE WAS DILIGENT AND WAS NOT GUILTY OF NEGLIGENCE WHATSOEVER. THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF THE LIMITATION PROVISION MUST BE A CAUSE WHICH IS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PARTY INVOKING THE AID OF THE PROVISIONS. IN THE CASE OF RAMLAL V. REWA COALFIELDS LTD. (AIR 1962 SC 361), THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS HELD THAT THE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING T HE APPEAL, WHICH BY DUE CARE AND ATTENTION, COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED, CANNOT BE A SUFFICIENT CAUSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LIMITATION PROVISION. WHERE NO NEGLIGENCE, OR INACTION OR WANT OF BONA FIDES CAN BE IMPUTED TO THE ASSESSEE, A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE LIMITATION PROVISIONS HAS TO BE MADE OR ORDER TO ADVANCE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. SEEKERS OF JUSTICE MUST COME WITH CLEAN HANDS. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR CONDONING THE DELAY. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE DELAY WAS DUE TO NEGLIGENCE, AND INACTION ON THE PART OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND THE INORDINATE DELAY OF 2569 DAYS CANNOT BE CONDONED AND THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED AS TIME BARRED. THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI IS SQUARELY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE SAID EXPLANATION 3C TO SECTION 43B WAS INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2006 WHICH BECOMES OPERATIVE W.E.F. 1.4.2006. THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE ITA NO. 1543 /HYD/1 0 AND SIX OTHERS SRI VISHN U CEMENTS LTD., BANGALORE 6 FILED THE APPEAL IN THE YEAR 2006. THERE IS A DELAY OF MORE THAN 4 YE ARS AFTER THE SAID AMENDMENT WAS INCORPORATED IN THE STATURE. WHERE NO NEGLIGENCE, OR INACTION OR WANT OF BONA FIDES CAN BE IMPUTED TO THE ASSESSEE, A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE LIMITATION PROVISIONS HAS TO BE MADE IN ORDER TO ADVANCE SUBSTANTIAL JUST ICE. SEEKERS OF JUSTICE MUST COME WITH CLEAN HANDS. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR CONDONING THE DELAY IN THE PRESENT CASES . KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE DELAY WAS DUE TO NEGLIGENCE, AND THERE WAS CONTINUED ATTIT UDE OF INACTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN AFTER THE RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT TO THE PROVISIONS OF S.43B. HAD IT BEEN MERELY THE RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT TO THE PROVISIONS OF S.43B WHICH PROMPTED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE PRESENT APPEALS, ASSESSEE OUGH T TO HAVE FILED THE PRESENT APPEALS, AT THE MOST, IN THE YEAR 2006 ITSELF, AND OUGHT NOT TO HAVE TAKEN MORE THAN FOUR YEARS AFTER SUCH AMENDMENT, TO FILE THE PRESENT APPEALS . CO N SIDERING TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND NO REASONA BLE CAUSE FOR THE CONDONATION OF DELAY. WE THEREFORE, DE CLINE TO CONDONE THE DELAY, AND CONSEQUENTLY, DISMISS THESE APPEALS IN LIMINE AS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 9. IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION ON THE ISSUE OF CONDONATION OF DELAY, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO GO INT O THE MERITS OF THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THESE APPEALS. 10. IN THE RESULT, THESE FOUR APPEALS ARE DISMISSED IN LIMINE ASSESSEES APPEAL : ITA NO.490/HYD/2012 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993 - 94 1 1 . EFFECTIVE GR IEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE ASSESSEES CLAIM WITH REGARD TO FUNDED INTEREST, IN THE LIGHT OF THE RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT TO THE PROVISIONS OF S.43B, BY INSERTION OF EXPLANATION 3C ITA NO. 1543 /HYD/1 0 AND SIX OTHERS SRI VISHN U CEMENTS LTD., BANGALORE 7 THEREUNDER, BY FINANCE ACT, 2006 WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.1989. EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS BEHALF READ AS FOLLOWS - 1. TO ALLOW THE APPEAL IN RESPECT O F PAYMENT OF FUNDED INTEREST IN PREVIOUS Y EA RS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1995 - 96 TO 1997 - 98, 99 - 2000 AND 2000 - 01. 2. ANY OTHER GROUN D WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE ITAT A T THE TIM E OF HEARING. 12. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL ARE MISCONCEIVED. AFTER INSERTION OF THE EXPLANATION 3C BELOW S.43B WITH E FFECT FROM 1.4.1989, BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2006, F UN D ED INTER E ST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE Y E AR UNDER CONSIDERATION CANNOT BE ALLOWED, AND IT SHOULD B E ALLOWED ONLY ON ACTUAL PAYMENT BASIS. BEING SO, GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL ARE DEVOID OF MERIT. THE SAME ARE ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 13. I N THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993 - 94 IS DISMISSED. REVENUES APPEAL ITA NO. 669/HYD/2012 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 - 99 & ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION NO.87/HYD/2012 THEREIN 1 4 . EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEA L , DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) GUNTUR DATED 15.7.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 - 99 , READ AS FOLLOWS - 1 T H E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CA S E. 2. THE ROOT POINT IS, TO AFFORD O PPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE AND VERIFY THE CLAIM. ITA NO. 1543 /HYD/1 0 AND SIX OTHERS SRI VISHN U CEMENTS LTD., BANGALORE 8 3. THE RATIOS CITED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) ARE ONLY OF GUIDING NATURE, AND ARE APPLICABLE ONLY LWHEN THE FACTS ARE ESTABLISHED. 4. . AS AGAINST THIS, THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS - OBJECTION S MERELY SUPPORT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL. 15. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. EFFECTIVE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE OBSERVATION OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION OF FUNDED INTEREST ACTUALLY PAID DURING THE ACCOUNTING YEAR RELEVANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 - 99, WHICH IS RS.3,11,79,000 AN D DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE SAME SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION. W E ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS SOME MERIT IN THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL, INASMUCH AS THE CIT(A) BEFORE ACCEPTING THE CLAIM O F TH E ASSESSEE , OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, INSTEAD OF STRAIGHT AWAY ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE . IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPU G N E D ORD ER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WITH A DIRECTION TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ASSESSEE AND RECONSIDER THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE SAME ACCORDINGLY. HE SHAL L OF COURSE, GIVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND REDECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER DUE VERIFICATION AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 1 6 . IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO. 1543 /HYD/1 0 AND SIX OTHERS SRI VISHN U CEMENTS LTD., BANGALORE 9 17. IN THE ABSENCE OF A NY INDEPENDENT GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CROSS - OBJECTIONS, THE CO OF THE ASSESSEE IS REDUNDANT, AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 1 8 . IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL, ITA NO.669/HYD/2011 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION NO. 87/HYD/2012, BEING INFRUCTUOUS, IS REJECTED. 1 9 . TO SUM UP, FIRST FOUR APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED IN LIMINE, BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION AND THE FIFTH ONE, BEING I TA NO.49 0/ HYD/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993 - 94 IS DISMISSED. THE LON E APPEAL O F THE R E VENU E FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 - 99, BEING ITA NO.669/HYD/2012, IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE THEREIN, BEING INFRUCTUOUS, IS REJECTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED I N THE COURT ON 11.10.2013 SD/ - SD/ - (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) (CHANDRA POOJARI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT/ - 11TH OCTOBER , 2013 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI VISHNU CEMENTS LTD., (NOW MERGED WITH ZUARI CEMENTS LTD.) NO.1, 10 TH MAIN, JEEVANBHIMANAGAR, BANGALORE - 75 2. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 2(1), TIRUPATI 3 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 2(1) TIRUPATI 4 JOINT COMMISSIONER O F INCOME - TAX RANGE 2 TIRUPATI 5. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) CENTRAL HYDERABAD 6. CIT(A) IV HYDERABAD ITA NO. 1543 /HYD/1 0 AND SIX OTHERS SRI VISHN U CEMENTS LTD., BANGALORE 10 7. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX I, HYDERABAD 8. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX TIRUPATI 9. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ITAT HYDERABAD B.V.S