Sri D Bala Krishna, Hyderabad V. Dy.CIT, Central Circle - 5, Hyderabad

ITA 1370/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6059 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A SITARAMA RAO
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1370/HYD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 D. BALA KRISHNA, HYDERABAD PAN ABVPP 6184 A VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5, HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI A. SRINIVAS REVENUE BY : SHRI A. SITARAMA RAO DATE OF HEARING 08-09-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28-09-2016 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL), H YDERABAD, DATED 28/03/2012 PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT, FOR AY 2007 -08. 2. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US WITH A DELAY OF 775 DAYS. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT MENTIONING THE REASONS FOR THE SAID DELAY, WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 10. THE REASONS FOR DELAY OF 772 DAYS WAS THAT I HA D BEEN GIVEN TO UNDERSTAND THAT I WAS TO FILE AN APPEAL A FTER I RECEIVED THE ORDER FROM THE AO. BASED ON THE ADVICE GIVEN I HAD FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO BEFORE THE APPEL LATE COMMISSIONER. 11. SUBSEQUENT TO THAT IT WAS REALIZED THAT THE NO TICE GIVEN FOR REVISING THE ORDER AND THE ORDER WHICH WAS REVI SED WERE TWO DIFFERENT ORDERS. 2 ITA NO. 1370/H/14 SRI D. BALA KRISHNA 12. WHEN THE MATTER CAME UP FOR HEARING BEFORE THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER THE ABOVE ANOMALY WAS NOTICED AND THE ONLY COURSE WAS TO CHALLENGE THE ORDER U/S 263 WAS IMMED IATELY DONE. 3. REFERRING TO THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITT ED THAT THE DELAY MAY BE CONDONED AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR ADJU DICATION. AS THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AN D ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING AND ADJUDICATION. 4. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT LD. CIT (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD ISSUED A NOTICE OF REV ISION ON 29/02/2012 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) DATE D 31/12/2009 FOR THE AY 2007-08. THERE IS ONE MORE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, DATED 31/ 12/2011. LD. CIT HAS PASSED THE ORDER U/S 263 ON 28/03/2012 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 153C, DATED 30/12/2011 . LD. AR POINTED OUT THAT LD. CIT INITIALLY ISSUED REVISION NOTICE FOR THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) DATED 31/12/2009, BUT, PASSED REVISION O RDER AGAINST THE ORDER U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. HE, THEREFORE, CONTENDED THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECOR D. 5. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT IS PROPER, BUT, THERE IS A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR WHILE QUOTING THE SECTIONS IN THE 263 ORDER, WHICH MAY BE IGNORED . 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE CO UNSELS AND MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT NO DO UBT LD. CIT HAS ISSUED OR INTENDED TO ISSUE REVISIONAL ORDER U/S 26 3 FOR THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153C DATED 31/12/2011, BUT, BY OVERSIGHT ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE EARLIER ORDER, WHICH WAS PASSED U/S 143(3) DATED 31/12/2009. WE FI ND THAT THE CIT HAS MADE A PROCEDURAL MISTAKE, WHICH IS APPARENT ON RECORD AND THE SAME NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED. HENCE, WE FIND IT APPRO PRIATE TO REMIT THIS MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT TO CORRECT THIS PROCEDURAL MISTAKE 3 ITA NO. 1370/H/14 SRI D. BALA KRISHNA AND ISSUE A PROPER NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AND COMPL ETE THE REVISIONAL PROCEEDINGS AS PER LAW. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016. SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAH MAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 KV COPY TO:- 1) SHRI D. BALA KRISHNA, PLOT NO. 523, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR COLONY, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD. 2) DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 5, HYDERABAD 3) CIT(CENTRAL), HYDERABAD 4) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD. 5) GUARD FILE