GVR Infra Projects Limited, Hyderabad V. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

ITA 1270/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2597 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-10-2021
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 13-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KOMALI KRISHNA
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1270/HYD/2018 A.Y. 2013 - 14 GVR INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD. PAN: AABCG 8066 C VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 1271/HYD/2018 A.Y. 2014 - 15 GVR INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD. PAN: AABCG 8066 C VS. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SRI S. RAMA RAO REVENUE BY SMT. KOMALI KRISHNA, CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING: 25/10/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26 /10/2021 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, A.M: THE ABOVE TWO CAPTIONED APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 2, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NOS. 10201 & 2 10349/CIT(A) - 2/HYD/2016 - 17, DATED 09 TH MARCH, 2018 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.YS 2013 - 14 AND 2014 - 15 . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FIVE GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 2013 - 14 AND THEY ARE EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A OF RS. 42,04,552/ - MADE BY THE A.O. WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 86,94,289/ - DEBITED TO THE P & L ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD HEDGING PREMIUM NET OF MTM VA LUATION ON FORWARD CONTRACTS. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE SAID AMOUNT IS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN CAPITALISING THE HEDGING PREMIUM OF RS. 1,37,44,234/ - WITHOUT HO LDING THAT THE SAID AMOUNT REPRESENTS THE REVENUE EXPENSES. 5. ANY OTHER GROUND OR GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVEN GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 2014 - 15 AND THEY ARE EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA(4) OF RS. 66,93,53,430/ - ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS NOT CLAIMED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AND THAT SUCH REVISED CLAIM CANNOT BE MADE. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT SUCH REVISED CLAIM CAN BE MADE BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND THAT THE APPELLANT SATISFIED ALL THE CONDITIONS NECESSARY FOR ALLOWING DEDUC TION U/S. 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ADMITTED THE CLAIM AND ALLOWED THE SAME. 3 5. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A OF RS. 48,34,111/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 14A ARE NOT APPLICABLE. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 65,62,000/ - DEBITED TO THE P & L ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD HEDGING PREMIUM NET OF MTM VALUATION ON FORWARDS CONTRACTS. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONS IDERED THE FACT THAT THE SAID AMOUNT IS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION . 7. ANY OTHER GROUND OR GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 4 . AT THE OUTSET, LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 03 DAYS IN FILING BOTH THE APPEALS FOR THE A.Y. 2013 - 14 AND 2014 - 15 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN AFFIDAVIT SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY WHEREIN THE REASONS FOR NOT FILING THE APPEALS WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT WAS EXPLAINED. FOR REFERENCE, THE RELEVANT PORTION F ROM THE AFORESAID LETTER IS EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW: '.. THE PETITIONER HUMBLY SUBMITS THAT DUE TO CONTINUOUS ABSENCE OF THE PERSON DEALING WITH THE CASE AND THE MATTER PERTAINING TO FILING OF APPEALS, THE APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COULD NOT BE FILED IN TIME. HOWEVER THE APPEAL IS BEING FILED ON 13/06/2018. IN THE PROCESS THERE IS A DELAY OF 3 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL 5 . ON PERUSAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT APPEARS THAT THE DELAY OF 03 DAYS IN FILING BOTH THE APPEALS FOR THE A.Y. 2013 - 14 AND 2014 - 15 WAS DUE TO NON - AVAILABILITY OF THE PERSON DEALING WITH THE CASE. THIS KIND OF LAME REASON BY THE LD.AR IS NOT APPRECIABLE . HOWEVER , KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN T HE APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY CONDONE THE DELAY OF 03 DAYS IN FILING BOTH THE 4 APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEALS ON MERITS. 6 . AT THE OUTSET, LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED EX - PAR TE ORDER AND DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y. 2013 - 14 AND 2014 - 15. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD . LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND ARGUED THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER, ON THE GIVEN DATES OF HEARING, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR IT S REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE THE LD. CIT(A) HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO PASS EX - PARTE ORDER BASED ON THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HENCE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) DO ES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. 7 . 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 SEVERAL OCCASIONS. HOWEVER, N O ONE APPEARED ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON THE DATES OF HEARING. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL S EX - PARTE. IN THIS SITUATION, WE DO NOT FIND MUCH STRENGTH IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR. HOWE VER, CONSIDERING THE PRAYER OF THE LD. AR 5 AND THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL S , IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) IN ORDER TO CONSIDER BOTH THE APPEAL S FOR THE A.Y. 2013 - 14 AND 2014 - 15 AFRESH ON MERITS 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) SH ALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE O RDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON THE RECORD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 8 . IN THE RESULT, TWO APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 26 TH OCTOBER , 2021. SD/ - SD/ - (S.S. GODARA) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 26 TH OCTOBER , 2021. OKK COPY TO: - 1) GVR INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED, PLOT NO. 231, SWAMY AYYAPPA SOCIETY, MADHAPUR, HYDERABAD - 500 081. 2) ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(2), SIGNATURE TOWERS, KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD. (II) DCIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), SIGNATURE TOWERS, KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT(A) - 2, HYDERABAD. 4) THE PR. CIT - 2, HYDERABAD. 6 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE