ACIT Central Circle - 3, Hyderabad V. Sri Ch. Krishna Murthy, Hyderabad

ITA 1128/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 112822514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 10-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B KURMI NAIDU
• Assessee Lawyers: M CHANDRAMOULESWARA RAO
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Deemed dividend
• Section: 143(3); 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.1128/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005 ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3 HYDERABAD. VS. M R.CH. KRI SHNA MURTHY, HYDERABAD. PAN ABJPC6521A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA.NO.1210/HYD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005 MR.CH. KRISHNA MURTHY, HYDERABAD. PAN ABJPC6521A VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3 HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR REVENUE : MR. B. KURMI NAIDU FOR ASSESSEE : MR. M. CHANDRAMOULESWARA RAO DATE OF HEARING : 29.03.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 .05 .2016 ORDER PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. THESE TWO ARE CROSS-APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-VII, HYDERABAD. THE ISSUE IN THE APPE AL IS BASICALLY ABOUT THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 2(2 2)(E) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IN THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECT ION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 . 2 ITA.NO.1128/H/2011 & 1210/H/2012 MR. CH. KRISHNA MURTHY, HYDERABAD. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, ASSESSEE IS A DIRECTOR OF M/S. VISHNU CHEMICALS PVT. LTD., AND ALSO PROMOTER OF TH AT COMPANY AND OTHER COMPANY BY NAME M/S. SOLVEY VISHNU BARIUM PVT. LTD., CONSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH A ND SEIZURE OPERATIONS CONDUCTED IN ASSESSEES CASE ON 19.02.2008 A.O. HAS UNDERTAKEN THE PROCEEDINGS UNDE R SECTION 153A OF THE I.T. ACT. A.O. HAS EXAMINED THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS OF ASSESSEE WITH THAT OF THE COMPANIES IN WHICH HE IS A DIRECTOR AND DETERMINED THE INCOME TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) AT RS.21,34,8 54 AND RS.2,46,00,000. THUS, A.O. ASSESSED TWO AMOUNTS AS DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER TWO DIFFERENT SET OF TRANSACT IONS. ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE SAME BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT HE HAS NOT TAKEN ANY LOAN AND THESE ARE CONTRA ENTRIES AT THE TIME OF DEMERGER OF THE COMPANY AND THESE TRANSACTI ONS DOES NOT ATTRACT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E). WI TH REFERENCE TO THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS OF M/S. VISHNU CHEMICALS P. LTD., IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THOSE ARE CURRENT ACCOUNT TRANSACTIONS WHEREIN BOTH ADVANCES AND RECEIPTS ARE BEING THERE AND THEY ARE FOR THE PURPO SE OF BUSINESS AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E). 2.1 LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF ASSE SSEE PARTLY AND HELD AS UNDER : 5.4. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS THE ARGUMENT OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT APPELLANT DID NOT TAKE ANY ADVANCES FROM M/S VISHNU CHEMICALS PVT LTD, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED. HEN CE, 3 ITA.NO.1128/H/2011 & 1210/H/2012 MR. CH. KRISHNA MURTHY, HYDERABAD. IT IS THE ARGUMENT OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ADVANCES GIVEN BY M/S VISHNU CHEMICALS PVT LTD IS TOWARDS ALLOTMENT OF SHARES FROM M/S VISHNU BARIUM CHEMICALS PVT LTD AND THE SHARES WERE NOT ALLOTTED IN THE NAME OF M/S VISHNU CHEMICALS PVT LTD, SINCE THERE WAS SOME OBJECTION FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF M/S SVBL (M/S SOLVEY VISHNU BARIUM LIMITED), MR.PAUL DANDOY FOR ALLOTMENT OF SHARES TO M/S VISHNU CHEMICALS PVT LTD. FURTHER, IT APPEARS CERTAIN CLARIFICATIONS WERE SOUGHT FROM M/S SVBL TO TAKE M/S VISHNU CHEMICALS PVT LTD AS A SHARE HOLDER. THE SHARES WERE HOWEVER, ALLOTTED TO THE APPELLANT AND FAMILY MEMBERS AS PER JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO AS A PART OF DEMERGE R AGREEMENT. HENCE, THE SHARES WERE ALLOTTED IN THE NAME OF APPELLANT AND APPELLANT HAD TAKEN OVER THE RESPONSIBILITY OF REPAYING THE SAID SHARE APPLICATI ON MONEY TO M/S VISHNU CHEMICALS PVT LTD WHICH IS IN FACT HAS BEEN DISCHARGED BY 31.3.2004. THEREFORE, I T IS ARGUED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 2(22){E) OF THE LT. ACT, 1961 IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. 5.5 THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO HAS BEEN PERUSED. HAVING VERIFIED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE APPELLANT HA D RECEIVED SHARES FROM M/S VISHNU BARIUM CHEMICALS PVT LTD AND HE HAS TAKEN OVER THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PAYING BACK THE SAID MONEY TO M/S VISHNU CHEMICALS PVT LTD. IT MAY BE SEEN THAT BECAUSE OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS IN THE AGREEMENT, THE SHARES APPLIED BY M/S VISHNU CHEMICALS PVT LTD COULD NOT BE ALLOTTED BY M/S VISHNU BARIUM CHEMICALS PVT LTD IN COMPANY'S NAME. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT BEING A DIRECTOR OF M/S VISHNU CHEMICALS PVT LTD HAD TAKEN UP THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PAYING BACK THE ADVANCES PAID BY M/S VISHNU CHEMICALS PVT LTD. THEREFORE, TH E APPELLANT HAD PAID BACK FUNDS WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN RETURNED BY M/S VISHNU BARIUM CHEMICALS PVT LTD TO M/S VISHNU CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. IT ALSO APPEA RS 4 ITA.NO.1128/H/2011 & 1210/H/2012 MR. CH. KRISHNA MURTHY, HYDERABAD. THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT TAKEN ANY ADVANCES FROM M/S VISHNU CHEMICALS PVT LTD, THEREFORE, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT NO DEEMED DIVIDEND CAN BE CHARGED IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT. IF AT ALL ANY DEEMED DIVIDEND T O BE CHARGED, IT IS ONLY IN THE CASE OF M/S VISHNU BARIUM CHEMICALS PVT LTD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, IS AT LIBERTY TO INITIATE ACTION U/S 2(22) (E) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IN CASE OF M/S VISHNU BARIUM CHEMICALS PVT LTD. THEREFORE, HAVING CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM INCLINED TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS DEEMED DIVIDEND AND THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. 6. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS IN RESPECT OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.21,34,854 WHICH IS ALSO TOWARDS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S. 2(22)(E) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE THAT TH E APPELLANT HAS BEEN MAINTAINING AN ACCOUNT WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF CURRENT ACCOUNT IN M/S VISHNU CHEMICALS PVT LTD. THE APPELLANT FREQUENTLY DRAWS THE MONEY AND ALSO DEPOSITS THE MONEY DEPENDING UPON THE NECESSITY OF M/S VISHNU CHEMICALS PVT LTD WHEREIN THE APPELLANT IS A DIRECTOR. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, M/S VISHNU CHEMICALS PVT LTD HAS MADE CERTAIN PAYMENTS TO THE VARIOUS PARTIES ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED THE SAID AMOUNT AS DEEMED DIVIDEND AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF TH E APPELLANT WHICH IS NOT CORRECT. THEREFORE, IT IS PL EADED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE DELETED. 6.1 THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE ALSO VERIFIED. IT IS SEEN THAT EVEN THOUGH THE APPELLANT WOULD HAVE INFUSED FUNDS IN M/S VISHNU CHEMICALS PVT LTD MORE FREQUENTLY BUT IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DRAWN FUNDS HEAVILY FROM THE COMPANY TO MAKE PAYMENTS TO THE VARIOUS PARTIES ON 5 ITA.NO.1128/H/2011 & 1210/H/2012 MR. CH. KRISHNA MURTHY, HYDERABAD. BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOUSE CONSTRUCTION. THEREFORE, THE FUNDS OF THE COMPANY HAVE BEEN UTILIZED BY THE APPELLANT FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL PURPOSES. THEREFORE, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE COMPUTATION OF DEEMED DIVIDEND IN APPELLANT'S HAND IS JUSTIFIED. HENCE, HAVING CONSIDERED THE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE VIEW THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD VALID GROUND IN ADDING DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 SINCE THE APPELLANT HAD UTILIZED THE COMPANY'S FUND S FOR PERSONAL PURPOSE. HENCE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.21,34,854 IS CONFIRMED AND THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS TREATED AS DISMISSED. 2.2. REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED ON THE DELETION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.2.64 CRORES WHEREAS, ASSESSEE IS AGGRI EVED ON THE CONFIRMATION OF RS.21,34,854 UNDER THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E). ITA.NO.1128/HYD/2011 (REVENUE APPEAL) 3. REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WITH REGARD TO ASSESSMENT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND OF RS.2.46 CRORES ULS 2(22)(E) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MANAGING DIRECTOR OF BOTH THE COMPANIES IN QUESTION AND WAS IN FULL KNOWLEDGE OF ALL THE FACTS AND WAS KEY PERSON EVEN IN DECIDING THE MATTERS OF DEMERGER AND THE FINALIZATION OF JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT WHICH 6 ITA.NO.1128/H/2011 & 1210/H/2012 MR. CH. KRISHNA MURTHY, HYDERABAD. BECAME THE BASIS OF DIRECTING OF INTER-CORPORATE ADVANCE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE EXPLANATION EXTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE SHARES WERE EVENTUALLY ALLOTTED T O THE ASSESSEE OUT OF THE ADVANCE AMOUNTS GIVEN BY M/S VISHNU CHEMICAL P LTD TO M/S SOLVEY VISHNU BARIUM LTD . 5. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) WHICH SPEAKS OF 'AN ADVANCE OR LOAN TO A SHARE HOLDER'. A LOAN OR AN ADVANCE IS DEFINITELY REQUIRED TO BE REPAID AND THE ASSESSEE CLAIM THAT IT WAS REPAID IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE, AS I T DOES NOT CHANGE THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED FOR APPLYING SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE I.T ACT. 6. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE COUNSELS, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE WELL REASONED ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A). NO FACTS WERE BROUGHT ON RECORD TO COUN TER THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THAT WE DO N OT FIND ANY MERIT IN REVENUE APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, REVENUE A PPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA.NO.1210/HYD/2012 (ASSESSEE APPEAL) 5. ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THE APPEAL WITH DELAY OF 425 DAYS. THE REASONS FOR DELAY ARE STATED AS UN DER : I, CHERUKURI KRISHNA MURTHY S/O. LATE CHERUKURI SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDENT AT FLAT NO.919, R.NO,47, JUBLIEEHILLS, HYDERABAD-500 033 DO HEREBY STATE AND AFFIRM ON THIS 6TH AUGUST, 2012 AT HYDERABAD AS FOLLOWS : - 7 ITA.NO.1128/H/2011 & 1210/H/2012 MR. CH. KRISHNA MURTHY, HYDERABAD. I) THAT I AM AN INDIVIDUAL AND MY ASSESSMENT FOR A Y 2004-05 HAVE BEEN COMPLETED U/S.153A OF THE IT, ACT, 1961 CONSEQUENT TO SEARCH OPERATIONS U /S.132 OF THE ACT; II) THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BY ME IN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) AND MY APPEAL HAS BEEN PARTLY ALLOWED; III) THAT I HAVE NOT FLIED APPEAL AGAINST THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) AND SIMILARLY, I HAVE EXPECTED THAT THE REVENUE WILL ALSO NOT FLIED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE CIT (A . IV) THAT I HAVE CONSULTED AN INCOME TAX ADVOCATE ON THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AFTER THE FILING OF THE APPEAL BY REVENUE BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT, WHO ADVISED ME TO FILE AN APPEAL ON THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IN VIEW OF DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF AL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD., AND TO TAKE THE FOLLOWING TWO GROUNDS OF APPEALS WHICH WILL TOUCH THE ISSUES ON LAW: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW THE LEI. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN MAKI NG ASSESSMENT U/S.153A OF THE IT ACT, FOR THE AY 20040 5 FOR WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AND ATTAINED FINALITY AND ERRONEOUSLY RE-CONSIDERED THE ISSUES I N ASSESSMENT MADE U / S .153A, ABOUT WHICH NO INCRIMINATING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR OTHER MATERIAL WERE FOUND IN THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS. TH E LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ROPING TH E PROVISIONS OF SEC.2(22)(E) IN THE ASSESSMENT U/S.15 3A ABOUT WHICH NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND IN THE SEARCH U/S.132. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN BRING ING TO TAX U/S.2(22)(E ) OF THE ACT, THE TRANSACTIONS W HICH 8 ITA.NO.1128/H/2011 & 1210/H/2012 MR. CH. KRISHNA MURTHY, HYDERABAD. WERE UNDERTAKEN UNDER THE BUSINESS EXIGENCIES AND WHICH WERE UNDERTAKEN AS PURE BUSINESS TRANSACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RESOLUTION OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS BEFORE DE-MERGER. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ROPING THE PROVISIONS O F SEC.2(22)(E ) TO THE TRANSACTIONS UNDERTAKEN AS PER THE COMMERCIAL NECESSITY OF THE PARENT COMPANY. 3. SUCH OTHER GROUND/GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED WITH THE LEAVE OF THE HON'BLE ITAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. V) THAT THE DELAY OF 425 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS NOT INTENTIONAL AND IT IS DUE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND MY CONTROL AND PARTICULARLY DUE TO THE EXPECTATION THAT THE REVENUE WILL NOT FILE ANY FURTHER APPEAL ON THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) AND ALSO DUE TO THE FACT THAT A DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH HAS COME SUBSEQUENT-TO THE DECISION OF LEARNED CIT-I HAVE NOT RECEIVED PROPER ADVISE ABOUT FILING OF THE APPEAL IN TIME. THAT I MOST RESPECTFULLY AND HUMBLY PRAY THE HON'BL E ITAT TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT MY APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 6. LD. COUNSEL REITERATED THE SUBMISSION S MADE IN THE CONDONATION PETITION. LD. D.R. HOWEVER, SUBM ITTED THAT THESE ARE NOT PROPER REASONS FOR CONDONATION O F DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE AFFIDAVIT, ASSESS EE WAS NOT HAVING ANY INTENTION TO CHALLENGE THE CIT(A) OR DER AND HAS ACCEPTED. THAT HE HAS TAKEN OPINION AFTER THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF ALL CA RGO 9 ITA.NO.1128/H/2011 & 1210/H/2012 MR. CH. KRISHNA MURTHY, HYDERABAD. GLOBAL LOGISTICS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS A VALID REAS ON BECAUSE ASSESSEE CANNOT FOREGO HIS OR ITS RIGHTS WH ICH ARE GIVEN BY THE STATUTE. IF ASSESSEE IS HAPPY WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THERE IS NO NEED TO CHALLENGE THE ORDER EVEN SUBSEQUENTLY. MOREOVER, ASSESSEE HAS NEVER CHALLENG ED THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153A NOR THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT IT DOES NOT ARISE OUT OF THE SEARCH MATERIAL. NEITHER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R NOR BEFORE THE CIT(A) ASSESSEE HAS QUESTIONED THE VERY BASIS OF PROCEEDINGS AND ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED DETAILS W ITHOUT ANY OBJECTION. EVEN IF ONE WERE TO CONSIDER ASSESSE ES CONDONATION PETITION SYMPATHETICALLY, THE GROUND RA ISED BEFORE US DOES NOT EMANATE FROM THE ORDER OF THE A. O. OR CIT(A). IN FACT, THERE WAS NO CHALLENGE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. ASSESSEE RAISED GROUND UNDER SECTION 1 53A AS A REGULAR GROUND IN THE APPEAL MEMO FILED AND WH EN IT WAS POINTED OUT, ASSESSEE PREFERRED A FRESH GROUND OF APPEAL AND NOT AN ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL. SIN CE THE FACT WHETHER ANY SEARCH MATERIAL IS THERE OR NOT RE QUIRE VERIFICATION OF FACTS, FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES LAI D DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SA BUILDER S LTD., REPORTED IN 289 ITR 26, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND CANNOT BE ADMITTED. ASSESSEES MAIN CHALLENGE IS ONLY ON T HE ISSUE OF MAKING ADDITION UNDER SECTION 153A WHICH CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED IN THE ABSENCE OF RELEVANT FA CTS ON RECORD, AS ASSESSEE IS NOT CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LO WER AUTHORITIES. THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. SOUTHERN GROUP INDUSTRIES LTD., 300 ITR 113 ALSO HOLDS THAT GROUNDS, ON WHICH FACTS ARE NOT AVAILABL E ON 10 ITA.NO.1128/H/2011 & 1210/H/2012 MR. CH. KRISHNA MURTHY, HYDERABAD. RECORD, CANNOT BE CONSIDERED EVEN IF THE GROUND IS LEGAL IN NATURE. IN THE AFFIDAVIT ITSELF ASSESSEE SUBMITS TH AT HE WANTED TO CHALLENGE THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 1 53A AND ADDITION MADE THEREIN, ONLY AFTER THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGIS TICS LTD., WHICH INDICATE THAT ASSESSEES INTENTION TO C HALLENGE HAS ARISEN SUBSEQUENTLY. THIS CANNOT BE A PROPER RE ASON FOR SEEKING CONDONATION. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE OUT A PROPER CASE FOR CONDONI NG THE DELAY IN PREFERRING THE APPEAL EVENTHOUGH REVEN UE HAS PREFERRED THE APPEAL MUCH EARLIER. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT APPEAL CA NNOT BE ADMITTED IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER REASONS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSEES APPEA L IS DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 8. IN THE RESULT, BOTH REVENUE AND ASSESSEE APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.05.2016. SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (B.RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 13 TH MAY, 2016 VBP/- 11 ITA.NO.1128/H/2011 & 1210/H/2012 MR. CH. KRISHNA MURTHY, HYDERABAD. COPY TO 1. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, 8 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, L.B. STADIUM ROAD, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD 500 004. 2. MR. CH. KRISHNA MURTHY, PLOT NO.919, ROAD NO.47, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(A) - VII, HYDERABAD. 4. CIT - (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT B BENCH, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE