Anshum Jain, Hyderabad V. Deepa Srinivasan ITO, Hyderabad

ITA 117/Hyd/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6418 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 16-02-2021
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P SURESH
• Assessee Lawyers: K A SAI PRASAD
• Keywords: Recovery proceedings; Competent authority; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH SMC, HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 117/HYD/2021 A.Y. 2013 - 14 ANSHUM JAIN, HYDERABAD. PAN: APMPJ 3348 H VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(1), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI K.A. SAI PRASAD REVENUE BY: SHRI P. SURESH, DR DATE OF HEARING: 30/03/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15 /0 4 /2021 ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 4, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO. 10265/17 - 18/ITO,WD.5(1)/CIT(A) - 4/HYD/19 - 20, DATED 06/08/2019 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 AND U/S. 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2013 - 14. 2. AT THE OUTSE T, LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE ME THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 500 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. AR FILED AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE S TAX CONSULTANT WHEREIN THE REASONS FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT WAS EXPLAINED. FOR REFERENCE, THE RELEVANT PORTION FROM THE AFFIDAVIT IS EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW: - 2 .. I AM THE TAX CONSULTANT OF THE ABOVE ASSESSEE AND I REPRESENTED THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. AFTER THE FIRS APPEAL WAS DISMISSED, APPELLANT HANDED OVER THE DOWN LOADED ORDER COPY TO ME FOR FILING THE SECOND APPEAL. SINCE, AT THAT RELEVANT TIME I WAS SHIFTING MY OFFICE, THESE PAPERS GOT MIXED UP IN THE OTHER LUGGAGE AND THEY COULD NOT BE LOCATED . SUBSEQUENTLY, I LOST SIGHT OF THIS APPEAL. ION THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 2021 WHEN THE ASSESSEE GOT CALL FOR RECOVERY OF TAXES, HE CONTACTED ME AND I IMMEDIATELY ONCE AGAIN DOWNLOADED THE APP EAL ORDER AND HANDED OVER THE PAPERS TO THE RELEVANT TAX CONSULTANT TO FILE THE SECOND APPEAL. HENCE, THE SECOND APPEAL WAS GOT FILED WITH A DELAY OF 500 DAYS . THE DELAY IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO MIXING UP OF PAPERS IN MY OFFICE. .. 3. ON PERUSAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE REASON FOR FILING OF THE APPEAL BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT IS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER , SINCE THE ASSESSEE OPTED TO AVAIL VIVAD - SE - VISHWAS SCHEME, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I HERE BY CONDONE THE DELAY OF 500 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND PROCEED TO HEAR THE APPEAL. 4 . AT THE OUTSET, LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE ME THAT THE ASSESSEE DESIRES TO AVAIL VIVAD SE VISWAS SCHEME. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE FORM NO.1 & 2 DUE TO PAUCITY OF TIME, HOWEVER HE ASSURED THE BENCH THAT THE FORM NO.1&2 SHALL BE FI LED SHORTLY. 5 . THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT IF THE ASSESSEE DESIRES TO AVAIL THE VIVAD SE VISHWAS SCHEME THE REVENUE HAS NO OBJECTION. 3 6 . HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, I AM INCLINED TO TREAT THE INSTANT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS WITHDRAWN RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. M/S. KEYARAM HOTELS P. LTD IN T.C.A. NO. 694 OF 2019, DATED 13/10/2020 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS : - 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT / ASSESSEE, ON INSTRUCTIONS, SUBMITTED THAT THE RESPONDENT / ASSESSEE INTENDS TO AVAIL THE BENEFIT OF VIVAD SE VISHWAS SCHEME (VVS SCHEME FOR BREVITY) AN D IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE IS TAKING STEPS TO FILE THE APPLICATION / DECLARATION IN FORM NO.1. . .. 7. AS OBSERVED, THE ASSESSEE IS GIVEN LIBERTY TO RESTORE THIS APPEAL IN THE EVENT THE ULTIMATE DECISION TO BE TAKEN ON THE DECLARATION TO BE FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE SAID ACT IS NOT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IF SUCH A PRAYER IS MADE, THE REGISTRY SHALL ENTERTAIN THE PRAYER WITHOUT INSISTING UPON ANY APPLICATION TO BE FILED FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN RESTORATION OF THE APPEAL A ND ON SUCH REQUEST MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BY FILING A MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FOR RESTORATION, THE REGISTRY SHALL PLACE SUCH PETITION BEFORE THE DIVISION BENCH FOR ORDERS. 8. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, WE DIRECT THE RESPONDENT / ASSESSEE TO FILE FORM NO.1 ON OR BEFORE 09/11/2020 AND THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY HTTP://WWW.JUDIS.NIC.IN5/6 T.C.A.NO.694 OF 2019. ACCORDINGLY, I HEREBY DISMISS THE INSTANT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y. 2008 - 09 AS WITHDRAWN . HOWEVER, I ALSO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT, IF THE ASSESSEES CASE IS NOT ACCEPTED IN THE VIVAD - SE - VISHWAS SCHEME BY THE REVENUE FOR WHATSOEVER MAY BE REASON ON A SUBSEQUENT DATE, THEN THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO FILE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION BEFORE THE 4 T RIBUNAL WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT TO REINSTATE HER APPEAL. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 7 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 15 TH APRIL , 2021. SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 15 TH APRIL , 2021. OKK COPY TO: - 1) SMT. ANSHUM JAIN, C/O. KATRAPATI & ASSOCIATES, 1 - 1 - 298/2/B/3, 1 ST FLOOR, ASHOK NAGAR, HYDERABAD 500 020. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(1) 3 RD FLOOR, D - BLOCK, IT TOWERS, AC GUARDS, HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT (A) - 4, HYDERABD. 4) THE PR. CIT - 4, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE