Urban Code Architectural Works Pvt Ltd., CHENNAI V. ITO Corporate Ward 3(3), CHENNAI

ITA 1195/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2697 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G N RAGAVENDRA RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 143(1); 250

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI , . , BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 1195/CHNY/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 M/S. URBAN CODE ARCHITECTURAL WORKS PVT. LTD., 219, FIRST FLOOR, FOUNTAIN PLAZA, PANTHEON ROAD, EGMORE, CHENNAI 600 008. [PAN:AABCU2339N] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(3), CHENNAI . ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G.N. RAGAVENDRA RAO, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 24.07.2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.08.2019 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 7, CHENNAI, DATED 27.11.2018 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. BESIDES CHALLENGING VARIOUS ISSUES ON MERITS, THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINLY CHALLENGED THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BY RAISING A SPECIFIC GROUND. 2. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN FILED LATE BY 74 DAYS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PETITION FOR CONDONATION I.T.A. NO. 1195/CHNY/19 2 OF DELAY IN SUPPORT OF AN AFFIDAVIT, WHEREIN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AS FOLLOWS: PETITION FOR CONDONTION OF DELAY APPELLANT WAS IN RECEIPT OF APPEAL ORDER PASSED U/S 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, DATED 27.11.2018 DULY RECEIVED ON 10.12.2018. THE DIRECTORS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAD HANDED OVER THE DOCUMENTS TO A TAX LAWYER TO FILE THE APPEAL AND WERE OF THE IMPRESSION THAT THE MATTER IS TAKEN CARE OF. MUCH TO THE COMPANY SURPRISE THE SAME WAS NOT FILED AT ALL. ONLY AFTER THE TIME LIMIT WAS OVER THE COMPANY WAS ABLE TO TAKE REMEDIAL ACTION AND ARRANGE FOR FILING WITH THE AUDITORS. HENCE THE APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER COULD NOT BE FILED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED 60 DAYS TIME LIMIT. THE APPELLANT REQUESTS THAT THE DELAY OF 73 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL MAY PLEASE BE CONDONED SINCE THE DELAY IS PURELY UNINTENTIONAL AND INADVERTENT AND DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND CONTROL. BY REFERRING TO THE ABOVE PETITION, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO WILFUL NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL. THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD HANDED OVER THE APPEAL PAPERS TO THEIR TAX LAWYER AND WAS OF THE IMPRESSION THAT THE APPEAL WAS DULY FILED. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE LD. COUNSEL PRAYED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BE CONDONED AND ADMITTED FOR HEARING. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO REASONABLE CAUSE STATED IN THE PETITION FOR CONDONING THE DELAY. 3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL, THE DELAY OF 74 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL STANDS CONDONED AND ADMITTED THE APPEAL FOR HEARING. I.T.A. NO. 1195/CHNY/19 3 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 ON 08.10.2015 ADMITTING INCOME OF .35,67,240/- AND LATER ON FILED REVISED RETURN ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF .33,55,550/- ON 04.11.2015. THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [ACT IN SHORT]. THEREAFTER, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY. AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILS FILED AGAINST STATUTORY NOTICES, THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED BY ASSESSING INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT . 1,10,15,792/- AFTER MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS. ON APPEAL, SINCE THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM ASSESSEE AGAINST POSTING THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 15.11.2018, THE LD. CIT(A) PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL AND ACCORDINGLY, CONFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 5. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD TO PRESENT ITS CASE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND PRAYED FOR DIRECTING THE LD. CIT(A) TO GIVE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES TO PRESENT ITS CASE AGAINST VARIOUS ADDITIONS. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. I.T.A. NO. 1195/CHNY/19 4 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. AGAINST VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. SINCE THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM ASSESSEE AGAINST POSTING THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 15.11.2018, THE LD. CIT(A) PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL AND ACCORDINGLY, HE CONFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ADJUDICATED THE ISSUES ON MERITS. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DIRECT THE LD. CIT(A) TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT ITS CASE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 27 TH AUGUST, 2019 IN CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (DUVVURU RL REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, 27.08.2019 VM/- /COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT, 2. / RESPONDENT, 3. ( ) /CIT(A), 4. /CIT, 5. /DR & 6. /GF.