Sanvi Infra Projects Private Limited(Formerly Known as M/s Sanvi Builders Private Limited), Hyderabad V. Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle -3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1274/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9397 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y V S T SAI
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Opportunity of being heard; Application of stay; Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3); 12

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1274/HYD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 & S.A. NO. 78/HYD/2019 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.1274/HYD/2018) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 M/S. SANVI INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. SANVI BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, #8 - 2 - 686/D/B/22/1, PLOT NO.22, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD 34. PAN: AABCE 7161 Q VS. JCIT (OSD), CIRCLE - 3(1), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI PAWAN KUMAR CHAKRAPANI REVENUE BY: SRI Y.V.S.T. SAI , DR DATE OF HEARING: 28/06/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 03 /0 7 /2019 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 3, HYDERABAD DATED 08/06/2016 IN APPEAL NO.372/JCIT - CIT(A) - 3(1)/CIT(A) - 3/2011 - 12 PASSED U/S 143(3) & 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. 2 2. TH E ASSESSE E HAS ALSO FILED STAY APPLICATION SEEKING STAY FROM RECOVERY OF THE OUTSTANDING DEMAND OF RS. 2,47,32,030 / - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. 3. AT THE OUTSET, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 617 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HE DR EW OUR ATTENTION TO THE CONDONATION PETITION ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND POINTED OUT THE CONTENTS OF PARA 8 OF THE CONDONATION PETITION . THE SAME IS EXTRACTED HEREINUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND R EFERENCE: - 8. SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE APPELLANT OUGHT TO HAD FILED AN APPEAL WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM THE RECEIPT OF THE ORDER I.E, 05/08/2016. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT COULD NOT FILE THE APPEAL WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD OF 60 DAYS AS T HE APPELLANT HAD NOT PAID SELF - ASSESSMENT TAX , THE APPELLANT WAS ALSO CALLED AND INTERROGATED BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI). THE APPELLANT WAS SUFFERING WITH HUGE FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES AND COULD NOT PAY THE AMOUNT OF SELF - ASSESSMENT TAX. FINA LLY THE APPELLANT COULD PAY THE SELF - ASSESSMENT TAX ON 13/03/2018, 29/03/2018, 06/04/2018 AND 17/04/2018. THE APPELLANT WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD BY THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER PAYMENT OF SELF - A SSESSMENT TAX. THE APPELLANT CONSULTED THE PRESENT COUNSEL AND HANDED OVER THE BRIEF TO BE REPRESENTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). AFTER NOTICING THAT THE ORDER OF THE APPEAL HAS ALREADY BEEN PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) - 3, HYDERABAD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE APPELLANT, THE PRESENT COUNSE L EXPRESSED THAT AN APPEAL IS REQUIRED TO BE FILED AS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. SOON AFTER OBTAINING THE PROFESSIONAL ADVICE FROM THE PRESENT COUNSEL THE APPELLANT WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME HAS FILED THIS PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THI S HONBLE TRIBUNAL. 4. ON PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT AS ONE OF THE DIRECTOR DEALING WITH THE RELEVANT MATTERS WAS UNDERGOING INVESTIGAT ION BY THE CBI AND WAS 3 FULLY OCCUPIED WITH THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION . THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION THERE IS A SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY OF 617 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AND THEREFORE IT IS A FIT CASE TO CONDONE THE DELAY. ACCORDINGLY , THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL IS CONDONED AND WE PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 5 . AT THE OUTSET, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BRIEFLY NARRATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PVT LTD COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2009 - 10 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,64,04,030/ - . THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT WHEREIN THE LD. A.O. MADE CERTAIN DISALLOWANCES VIZ., (I) DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,93,50,000/ - U/S. 68 OF THE ACT TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS; (II) DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,48,18,290/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND (III) DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 83,90,309/ - TOWARDS INTEREST PAID AND THE ASSESSED INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 7,89,62,629/ - . 6. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER, B EFORE THE LD. CIT(A) NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT ITS CASE AND THEREFORE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL EX - PARTE BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID THE SELF - ASSESSMENT TAX. 4 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS NOW ON APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. A T THE OUTSET, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NON - PAYMENT OF SELF - ASSESSMENT TAX AND THE APPEAL WAS NOT ADJUDICATED O N MERITS . IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID THE SELF - ASSESSMENT TAX. THEREFORE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT ASSESSEE MAY BE GRANTED ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE ITS CASE BEFORE THE LD . CIT (A) . THE LD DR ON THE OTHER HAND VEHEMENTLY ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT (A) AND PRAYED FOR DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE PROVIDED WITH ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE THE LD . CIT (A) AS THE SELF - ASSESSMENT TAX IS PAID WHICH IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES. ACCORDIN GLY, WE REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH DIRECTION S TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER GRANTING THE ASSESSEE REASONABLE OPPORTUNIT IES OF BEING HEARD. THE A SSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO CO - OPERATE WITH THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS PROC EEDINGS PROMPTLY FOR SPEEDY DISPOS AL OF THE APPEAL , FAILING WHICH THE LD CIT (A) SHALL PASS 5 APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH MERIT AND LAW BASED ON THE MATERIALS BEFORE HIM . 9. SINCE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ADJUDICATED AS ABOVE , THE STAY APPLICAT ION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT SURVIVE. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE STAY APPLICATION IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03 RD JULY, 2019. SD/ - SD/ - (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 03/07/ 2019 OKK COPY TO: - 1) M/S. SANVI INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. SANVI BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, #8 - 2 - 686/D/B/22/1, PLOT NO.22, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD 34. 2) JCIT (OSD), CIRCLE - 3(1), HYDERABAD 3) THE CIT(A) - 3, HYDERABAD. 4) THE PR. CIT - 3, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE