Gradiente Infotainment Limited, Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(5), Hyderabad

ITA 1053/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7042 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-10-2019
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJEEV BENJWAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 147

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.1051 TO 1055/HYD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 TO 2013 - 14 M/S. GRADIENTE INFOTAINMENT LIMITED, FLAT NO.306, MAYFAIR GARDENS, ROAD NO.12, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD - 34. PAN: AACCG 1241 Q VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 14(5), IT TOWERS, AC GUARDS, HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SMT. S. SANDHYA, AR REVENUE BY: SRI RAJEEV BENJWAL, DR DATE OF HEARING: 17/10/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21 /10/2019 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: ALL THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 6, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NOS. 0375, 0377, 0378, 0379 & 0380/2016 - 17/A2/A3/CIT(A) - 6, DATED 15/02/2018 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 & U/S. 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE AYS 2009 - 10 TO 2013 - 14. ] 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS APPEALS : 2 GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 2009 - 10: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DECIDING THE APPEAL WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING TH E ADDITION OF RS. 73,15,000/ - MADE BY THE A.O. WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE SAID AMOUNT DID NOT ACCRUE TO THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR OR THE SAID AMOUNT IS NOT REALISABLE. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS ON RECORD AND HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 73,15,000/ - IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 5. ANY OTHER GROUND / GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 2010 - 11 : 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE L D. CIT(A) ERRED IN DECIDING THE APPEAL WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED OF RS. 50,50,102/ - WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE IS ON ADVERTISEMENT, FINANCE COST AND OTHER EXPENSES WHICH ARE VERIFIABLE. 4 . ANY OTHER GROUND / GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 20 11 - 12 : 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH O N FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DECIDING THE APPEAL WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED OF RS. 1,53,07,613/ - WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE IS ON ADVERTISEMENT, FINANCE COST AND OTHER EXPENSES WHICH ARE VERIFIABLE. 3 4. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S. 35D OF THE ROC FEE PAID BY THE APPELLANT. 5. ANY OTHER GROUND / GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 20 12 - 13 : 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DE CIDING THE APPEAL WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,13,58,082/ - MADE BY THE A.O. WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE SAID AMOUNT DID NOT ACCRUED TO THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR OR THE SAID AMOUNT IS NOT REALISABLE. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS ON RECORD AND HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,13,58,082 IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE I NCURRED OF RS. 1,01,80,039/ - WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE IS ON ADVERTISEMENT, FINANCE COST AND OTHER EXPENSES WHICH ARE VERIFIABLE. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE DEDUCTION U/S. 35D OF THE ROC FEE PAID BY THE APPELLANT. 7. ANY OTHER GROUNDS / GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 2013 - 14: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DECIDING THE APPEAL WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 44,12,000/ - MADE BY THE A.O. WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE SAID AMOUNT DID NOT ACCRUE TO THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR OR THE SAID AMOUNT IS N OT REALISABLE. 4 4. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS ON RECORD AND HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 44,12,000/ - IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED OF RS. 7,39,641/ - WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE IS ON ADVERTISEMENT, FINANCE COST AND OTHER EXPENSES WHICH ARE VERIFIABLE. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE DEDUCTION U/S. 35D OF THE ROC FEE PAID BY THE APPELLANT. 7. ANY OTHE R GROUND OR GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 16 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL . IN THIS REGARD, LD. AR BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE AFFIDAVITS FILED BY THE AS S ESSEE S EEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY WHEREIN THE REASON FOR NOT FILING THE APPEALS WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT WAS EXPLAINED . FOR REFERENCE , THE RELEVANT PORTION FROM THE AFFIDAVIT IS EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW : - ..AGAINST THE SAID APPELLATE ORDER, THE PETITIONER FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ON 23/5/2018 WITH A DELAY OF 16 DAYS. THE PETITIONER HUMBLY SUBMITS THAT FROM 04/05/2018 TO 22/5/2018, SRI V.R. MATHUR, THE MANAGING DIR ECTOR OF THE PETITIONER COMPANY WAS SUFFERING FROM SEVER BACK PAID AND SCIATIC HEART DISEASES AND WAS ADVISED BED REST. A COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY OSMANIA GENERAL HOSPITAL, HYDERABAD IS ANNEXED. DUE TO HEALTH PROBLEMS HE COULD NOT CONTAC T THE ADVOCATE TILL 22/5/2018. THE PETITIONER CONTACTED THE ADVOCATE ON 23/05/2018; GOT THE APPEAL PAPERS PREPARED AND FILED THE APPEALS BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT ON THE SAME DATE. IN THE PROCESS, THERE WAS A DELAY OF 16 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. THE PET ITIONER HUMBLY SUBMITS THAT THE DELAY IS FOR THE REASONS SUBMITTED ABOVE WHICH ARE BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PETITIONER AND IS NOT INTENTIONAL. THE PETITIONER, THEREFORE, PRAYS THE HONBLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TO KINDLY CONDONE THE DELAY AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS IN THE MATTER. 5 4. AFTER HEARING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND ON PERUSAL OF THE AFFIDAVITS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL , WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE IS A SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE CAUSE THAT PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE FROM NOT FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY CONDONE THE DELAY IN THE FILING THE APPEALS. 5 . ON MERITS, A T THE OUTSET, T HE LD. AR BRIEFLY NARRATED THE FACTS OF EACH CASE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PASSED EX - PARTE ORDERS IN ALL THE APPEALS FOR THE AYS 2009 - 10 TO 2013 - 14 WITHOUT PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD CIT (A) IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PURSUE THE APPEAL S . LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND ARGUED THAT SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES HA D BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER, ON THE GIVEN DATES OF HEARING, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO PASS EX - PARTE ORDERS ON MERITS BASED ON MATERIALS ON RECORD . HENCE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 6 6 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. ON EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR. THE LD. CIT (A) HAD POSTED THE CASE ON SEVEN OCCASIONS IE., ON 11/08/2017, 01/12/2017, 08/12/2017, 26/12/2017, 18/01/2018 AND FINALLY ON 01/02/2018. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE ABOVE - MENTIONED DATES OF HEARING. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT (A) WAS LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL S EX - PARTE ON MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. IN THIS SITUATION WE DO NOT FIND MUCH STRENGT H IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE PRAYER OF THE LD. AR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT (A) IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL AFRESH BY PROVIDING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. AT THE SAME BREATH, WE ALSO HEREBY CAUTION THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTLY CO - OPERATE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) IN THE PROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH THE LD. CIT (A) SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON THE RECORD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 7 . IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST OCTOBER, 2019. SD/ - SD/ - ( V. DURGA RAO ) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 7 HYDERABAD, DATED: 21 ST OCTOBER , 2019 OKK COPY TO: - 1) GRADIENTE INFOTAINMENT LIMITED, FLAT NO. 306, MAYFAIR GARDENS, ROAD NO.12, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD 34. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 14(5), IT TOWERS, AC GUARDS, HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT(A) - 6 , HYDERABAD 4) THE PR. CIT - 6 , HYDERABAD 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE