M/s M. Narasimhanarayana Son, Hyderabad V. ITO,Ward 10(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1285/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7270 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 6 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-11-2019
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 03-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P MURALIMOHANA RAOCA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1285/HYD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 M/S. M. NARASIMHANARAYANA SON, HYDERABAD. PAN: AAGFM 0334 F VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 10(2), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI P. MURALI MOHANA RAO, CA AR REVENUE BY: SMT. MATTA PADMA, DR DATE OF HEARING: 07/11/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31 / 01/2020 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 18, MUMBAI DATED 04/02/2014 IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A) - 18/ITO - 10(2), HYD/IT - 277/2009 - 10 PASSED U/SA. 143(3) R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2007 - 08. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL HOWEVER, THE CRUXES OF THE ISSUES ARE AS FOLLOWS: 2 (I) THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LD. AO TOWARDS SALES COMMISSION PAID TO THE EMPLOYEES FOR RS. 29,28,068/ - . (II) THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING TH E DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LD. AO FOR RS. 10,03,529/ - TOWARDS DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST. (III) THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LD. AO FOR RS. 6,72,379/ - BEING 10% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE CLAIMED WITHOUT SUPPORTING BILLS AND VO UCHERS. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PASSED ORDERS WITHOUT PROPERLY HEARING THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE IT IS GROSS MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. HE FURTHER PLEADED THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MA Y BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEDED TO THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LD. AO WHICH WAS RECORDED IN THE ORDER SHEET DATED 03/07/2012. LD. DR FURTHER A RGUED BY STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) MAY BE CONFIRMED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. ON PERUSING THE ORDER SHEET PRODUCED BY THE LD. DR, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEDED TO CERTAIN ADDITIONS BEFORE 3 THE LD. AO AND FURTHER PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND MUCH MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE L D. AR. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF ADDITION S MADE AND SUSTAINED BY THE REVENUE AND THE NATURE OF BUSINESS CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN THE INTERE S T OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT (A) FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. WE ALSO HEREBY CAUTION THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTLY CO - OPERATE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) FAILING WHICH THE LD. CIT (A) SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE O RDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST JANUARY, 2020. SD / - SD/ - (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 31 ST JANUARY, 2020. OKK COPY TO: - 1) M/S. M. NARASIMHANARAYANA SON, C/O. P. MURALI & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 6 - 3 - 655/2/3, IST FLOOR, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD - 82. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 10(2), HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT(A) - 18, MUMBAI. 4) THE CIT - 5 /6, HYDERABAD. 4) THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 10, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE