M/s. Kobashi Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad V. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad

ITA 1426/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 142622514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 30-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SREELATHA VOOTKOOR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Difference of opinion; Condonation of delay
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER S. NO. ITA NO. AY APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. 173/H/14 2005-06 M/S KOBHASHI MACHINE TOOLS PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD. PAN AABCK 2459B ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD. 2. 174/H/14 2006-07 -DO- -DO- 3. 175/H/14 2007-08 -DO- -DO- 4. 1426/H/13 2005-06 -DO- -DO- 5. 1427/H/13 2006-07 -DO- -DO- 6. 1428/H/13 2007-08 -DO- -DO- ASSESSEE BY: SMT. SREELATHA VOOTKOOR REVENUE BY: SMT. K. HARITHA DATE OF HEARING: 21.05.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13.06.2014 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: THESE ARE SIX APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A). WHILE ITA NOS. 173 TO 17 5/HYD/2014 ARE QUANTUM APPEALS PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005 -06 TO 2007-08, ITA NOS. 1426 TO 1428/HYD/2013 ARE AGAINST IMPOSITI ON OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR THE VERY SAME ASSESSMENT Y EARS. SINCE ISSUES ARE COMMON AND RELATES TO THE SAME ASSESSEE, APPEALS ARE CLUBBED TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF IN A CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. I.T.A. NO. 173 TO 175/HYD/2014 & 1426 TO 1428/HYD/2 013 M/S KOBASHI MACHINE TOOLS PVT. LTD. 2 ITA NOS. 173, 174 & 175/HYD/2014 2. THE ONLY COMMON ISSUE IN THESE APPEALS IS DISMI SSAL OF ASSESSEES APPEALS IN LIMINE ON THE GROUND OF DELAY AND DEFECT IN APPEAL MEMOS. 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE, THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIAN COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF MACHINE TOOLS AND EXECUTION OF JOB WORKS. AS IT APPEARS FROM THE FACT S ON RECORD, FOR THE AY 2005-06 ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ADMITTIN G LOSS OF RS. 31,50,450/- AND FOR AY 2007-08 RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ADMITTING NIL INCOME. FOR THE AY 2006-07 ASSESSEE FILED RET URN ONLY IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT. AS CA N BE SEEN ASSESSMENTS FOR THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT YEARS WERE REOPENED U/S 147 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT FOR ALL THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS MAKING FOLLOWING ADDITIO NS. (AMOUNT IN RS.) AY 2005-06 AY 2006-07 AY 2007-08 DEPRECIATION AS PER COMPANIES ACT. 24,59,993/- 21,17,227/- 18,25,385/- UNEXPLAINED CREDITORS 11,18,600/- 8,03,710 7,22,398/- PARTLY DISCLOSURE OF DEPOSITS - - 20,45,779/- 4. AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS SO PASSED, ASSESSE E PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(A). IT APPEARS FROM RECORD T HAT THE APPEALS WERE FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) WITH A DELAY OF 145 DA YS. INITIALLY, VIDE ORDER DT. 20/12/2012, THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPE ALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE ON THE GROUND OF DELAY BY MENTIO NING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR CONDONAT ION OF DELAY. ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) BEFORE THE ITAT. THE ITAT IN ITA NO. 169-171/HYD/13, DATED 23/05/201 3 RESTORED THE APPEALS TO THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO CONSIDER ASSESSEES APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND DECIDE. IN CONSEQUENCE TO I.T.A. NO. 173 TO 175/HYD/2014 & 1426 TO 1428/HYD/2 013 M/S KOBASHI MACHINE TOOLS PVT. LTD. 3 THE DIRECTION OF THE ITAT, THE LD. CIT(A) REVIVED T HE PROCEEDINGS AGAIN. IN COURSE OF THE PROCEEDING BEFORE CIT(A) TH E ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM THAT APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED DUE TO ILLNESS OF THE MD SUBMITTED MEDICAL REPORTS ETC. THE LD. CIT(A) AF TER CONSIDERING ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS IN THE LIGHT OF EVIDENCE BRO UGHT ON RECORD FELT THAT THE CONDITION OF THE MD WAS NOT THAT SEVERE TO RENDER HIM INCAPABLE OF SIGNING THE APPEAL PAPERS. THE LD. CIT (A) ON GOING THROUGH THE MEDICAL REPORTS/PRESCRIPTIONS WAS OF TH E VIEW THAT THEY DO NOT REVEAL THAT THE MD WAS NOT IN SUCH A CONDITION WHICH CAN PREVENT HIM FROM CARRYING OUT HIS DAY TO DAY DUTIES. THE LD . CIT(A) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE SO CALLED MEDICAL CONDITION OF THE MD IS NOT EVEN CLASSIFIED AS A DISEASE IN MEDICAL LITERATURE. THE LD. CIT(A) OPINED THAT THE IRRITABLE BOWEL SYNDROME, THAT THE MD WAS STATED TO BE SUFFERING FROM IS A MOST COMMON CONDITION REQUIRING ANTACID TREATMENT. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D SHORT PERIOD OF MILD FEVER AND FEW DAYS OF HOSPITALISATION WHICH IS NOT AT ALL SERIOUS. LEARNED CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE FAL SE STATEMENT BY CLAIMING THAT THE MD COULD NOT ATTEND DUTIES FOR EIGHT MONTHS DUE TO ILLNESS. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT DELAY HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT ASSE SSEE HAS NOT PROPERLY VERIFIED THE APPEAL MEMO WHICH RENDERS THE APPEAL INVALID. ACCORDINGLY, LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIM INE. 5. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT CIT(A) W AS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT CONDONIN G DELAY. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING SHOWN A REASONAB LE CAUSE WHILE EXPLAINING DELAY, BEING SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE CONDONED THE DELAY. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED T HAT THE CIT(A) BEING NOT TECHNICALLY QUALIFIED CANNOT COMMENT UPON OR ASSESS THE MEDICAL CONDITION OF THE MD. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AS THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING A STRONG CASE ON MERIT, THE APPEALS SHOULD N OT HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OF IN LIMINE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SAME ON MERIT. SO FAR AS THE SECOND ISSUE RELATING TO VALIDITY OF THE APPEAL DUE TO IMPROPER I.T.A. NO. 173 TO 175/HYD/2014 & 1426 TO 1428/HYD/2 013 M/S KOBASHI MACHINE TOOLS PVT. LTD. 4 VERIFICATION OF APPEAL MEMO IS CONCERNED, THE LEARN ED AR SUBMITTED THAT NEITHER THE CIT(A) HAD ISSUED ANY DEFECT NOTIC E NOR POINTED OUT THE DEFECT TO THE ASSESSEE AT ANY TIME. THEREFORE, DISMISSAL OF APPEAL WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO RECTIFY THE DEFECT IS IN GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE LEARNED AR TH EREFORE REQUESTED FOR RESTORING THE APPEALS TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND DECIDE THE APPEALS ON MERIT. 6. THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERI ALS ON RECORD. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE APP EALS HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN LIMINE ON THE GROUND OF DELAY AS WELL AS FOR THE FACT THAT APPEAL MEMOS IN FORM NO. 35 HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY VERIFIED. UNDISPUTEDLY, THERE IS A DELAY OF 145 DAYS IN FILIN G APPEALS. EXPLAINING THE CAUSE OF DELAY ASSESSEE HAS STATED T HAT AS THE MD WAS ILL STEPS COULD NOT BE TAKEN FOR FILING THE APP EAL IN TIME. HOWEVER, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE A FALSE STATEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE MEDICAL CONDITION OF T HE MD. ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A) MEDICAL CONDITION OF CIT(A) IS NOT SO SEVERE TO INCAPACITATE TO THE EXTENT THAT HE WAS NOT ABLE TO SIGN THE APPEAL PAPERS. IN OUR VIEW, THE CIT(A) IS NEITHER COMPETEN T NOR TECHNICALLY QUALIFIED TO ASSESS THE DEGREE OF ILLNESS OF THE MD . IT IS A FACT ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ONLY EXPLAINED THE CAUSE OF DELAY BUT HAS ALSO SUBMITTED EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE SUC H CLAIM. AS CAN BE SEEN, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACT T HAT THE MD WAS ILL BUT HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ILLNESS IS NOT THAT SEVERE TO DISABLE THE MD FROM ATTENDING TO HIS DAY TO DAY WORK. HOWEVER, WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE VIEW OF LEARNED CIT(A). THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD SHOW THAT THE MD WAS KEEPING ILL INTERMITTENTLY. IT IS N OT NECESSARY THAT ONLY WHEN A PERSON IS IMMOBILE OR BEDRIDDEN HE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ATTEND TO HIS DAY TO DAY ACTIVITIES. EVEN WHEN A PE RSON IS AFFLICTED WITH ILLNESS QUITE INTERMITTENTLY, IT NOT ONLY TAKE S A TOLL ON HIM I.T.A. NO. 173 TO 175/HYD/2014 & 1426 TO 1428/HYD/2 013 M/S KOBASHI MACHINE TOOLS PVT. LTD. 5 PHYSICALLY BUT ALSO MENTALLY. IT SO MUCH PREOCCUPIE S HIS MIND THAT, IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT MANY OTHER ACTS OR DUTIES, W HICH HE COULD OTHERWISE HAVE ATTENDED TO IF NOT ILL, ESCAPES HIS ATTENTION. THOUGH SECTION 249 OF THE ACT PRESCRIBES THE TIME LIMIT OF 30 DAYS FOR PREFERRING APPEAL, IT ALSO EMPOWERS THE 1 ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO ADMIT AN APPEAL BEYOND 30 DAYS IF THE APPELLANT SHO WS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR DELAY. AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME CO URT IN CASE OF COLLECTOR OF LAND ACQUISITION V/S. MST. KATIJI AND OTHERS, (AIR 1987 (SC) 1353), THE EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUSE IS A DEQUATELY ELASTIC TO ENABLE THE COURTS TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TO PART IES BY DISPOSING OF MATTERS ON MERITS. THE HONBLE APEX COURT HELD THAT ORDINARILY A LITIGANT DOES NOT STAND TO BENEFIT BY LODGING AN AP PEAL LATE. REFUSING TO CONDONE DELAY CAN RESULT IN A MERITORIOUS MATTER BEING THROWN OUT AT THE THRESHOLD AND CAUSE OF JUSTICE BEING DEFEATE D. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF DELAY IS CONDONED, THE HIGHEST THAT CAN HA PPEN IS THAT A CAUSE WOULD BE DECIDED ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES. IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL CO NSIDERATIONS ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER, CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUS TICE DESERVES TO BE PREFERRED FOR THE OTHER SIDE CANNOT CLAIM TO HAVE V ESTED RIGHT IN INJUSTICE BEING DONE BECAUSE OF A NON-DELIBERATE DE LAY. THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT DELAY IS OCCASIONED DELIBERATELY O R ON ACCOUNT OF CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE, OR ON ACCOUNT OF MALAFIDE. A L ITIGANT DOES NOT STAND TO BENEFIT BY RESORTING TO DELAY. RATHER HE R UNS A SERIOUS RISK. THE HONBLE APEX COURT OBSERVED THAT JUDICIARY IS R ESPECTED NOT ON ACCOUNT OF ITS POWER TO LEGALISE INJUSTICE ON TECHN ICAL GROUNDS BUT BECAUSE IT IS CAPABLE OF REMOVING INJUSTICE AND IS EXPECTED TO DO SO. 8. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DICTUM LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT ( SUPRA), THERE IS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR CONDONING DELAY. SO FAR AS INV ALIDITY OF APPEALS DUE TO DEFECT IN THE APPEAL MEMOS, WE ARE OF THE VI EW THAT LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING THE APPEALS ON THIS GROUND WITHOUT POINTING OUT THE DEFECT AND ALLOWING OPPORT UNITY TO THE I.T.A. NO. 173 TO 175/HYD/2014 & 1426 TO 1428/HYD/2 013 M/S KOBASHI MACHINE TOOLS PVT. LTD. 6 ASSESSEE TO RECTIFY IT. IT NEEDS TO BE MENTIONED, L EARNED AR HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT IN THE MEANWHILE ASSESSEE HAS RECTIFIED THE DEFECT. BE THAT AS IT MAY, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF T HE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON MERIT AFTER CONDONING DELAY. LEARNED CIT(A) MUST ALSO PERMIT THE ASSESSEE TO RECTIFY THE DEFECT IN THE APPEAL MEMOS, IF NOT YET RECTIFIED. N EEDLESS TO SAY, ASSESSEE MUST BE AFFORDED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUES RAISED IN APPEALS. THOUG H THE LEARNED AR URGED BEFORE US TO DECIDE GROUNDS ON MERITS, WE REF RAIN FROM DOING SO AS LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEALS IN LIMI NE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE MERITS AND FOR WHICH REASON WE HAVE RESTORED THE APPEALS BACK TO HIS FILE. 9. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NOS. 1426, 1427 & 1428/HYD/2014 10. ALL THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESS EE ON THE COMMON ISSUE OF PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF TH E ACT BEING SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A). 11. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS ARE, AS STATED IN THE EARLIE R PART OF THIS ORDER THE ASSESSEE WAS IN BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OF MACH INE TOOLS AND EXECUTION OF JOB WORK. IN COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PR OCEEDING THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY TURNOVER FROM BUSINESS. HE, THEREFORE, CONCLUDED TH AT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS STOPPED ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES THERE IS NO USER OF THE PLANT AND MACHINERIES, HENCE, DEPRECIATION IS NOT A LLOWABLE. ACCORDINGLY, HE DISALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED . THAT BESIDES THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO MADE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITS AND UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS. AGAINST THE ASSES SMENT ORDERS SO I.T.A. NO. 173 TO 175/HYD/2014 & 1426 TO 1428/HYD/2 013 M/S KOBASHI MACHINE TOOLS PVT. LTD. 7 PASSED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(A ). DURING PENDENCY OF APPEALS BEFORE CIT(A), THE ASSESSING OF FICER ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE DIRECTING TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) SHALL NOT BE IMPOSED. IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ITS EXPLANATION STATING THEREIN THAT DUE TO SOME DISPUTE AND LITIGATION THERE WAS NO BUSINESS ACTIVI TY DURING THESE YEARS, HOWEVER, ASSESSEE HAS REPORTED TURNOVER IN A Y 2007-08. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT FOR PASSIVE USE ALSO DEPRECIATIO N IS PERMISSIBLE. HENCE, ADDITION BEING MADE ON DIFFERENCE OF OPINION CANNOT GIVE RISE TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. WITH REGARD TO OTHER ADDI TIONS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AS THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE HIGH COURT, THE ASSESSEE HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT HA D TO SURRENDER THE AMOUNTS RELATING TO UNEXPLAINED CREDITS/DEPOSIT S. FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AS APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED AGAI NST THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE BY STATING THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY COGENT REASONS FOR N OT LEVYING PENALTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT APPE ALS AGAINST ASSESSMENT ORDERS HAVE BEEN FILED BELATEDLY AND TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVIDED INFORMATION WHETHER APPEALS WERE ADMIT TED. ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED ORDERS IMPOSING PENALTY U/ S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR ALL THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT YEARS. ASSESSE E CHALLENGED THE PENALTY ORDERS IN APPEALS PREFERRED BEFORE THE CIT( A), WHO CONFIRMED THE PENALTY. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATER IALS ON RECORD. THE LEARNED AR REITERATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEF ORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES STATED THAT BY VIRTUE OF RATIO LAID DOW N IN A NUMBER OF DECISIONS ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEPRECIATIO N. SHE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SO FAR AS OTHER ADDITIONS ARE CONCER NED, ONLY BECAUSE ASSESSEE AGREED FOR SUCH ADDITION DUE TO COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES AND TO BUY PEACE WITH THE DEPARTMENT IT AUTOMATICAL LY CANNOT LEAD TO I.T.A. NO. 173 TO 175/HYD/2014 & 1426 TO 1428/HYD/2 013 M/S KOBASHI MACHINE TOOLS PVT. LTD. 8 THE CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED INCOME O R FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND JUSTIFIED IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. 13. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE ARE OF T HE VIEW THAT AT THIS STAGE IT WILL BE PREMATURE TO IMPOSE PENALTY U /S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WHEN ASSESSEES APPEALS AGAINST ASSESSMENT ORD ERS ARE STILL PENDING. IT MAY BE RECALLED THAT CIT(A) DISMISSED I N LIMINE APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT OR DERS. WHILE DEALING WITH ASSESSEES APPEALS IN ITA NOS. 173 TO 175/HYD/2014 AGAINST AFORESAID ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN EARLIER PA RT OF OUR ORDER, WE HAVE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND RESTORED THE APPEALS BACK TO HIM FOR DECIDING ON MERIT. A DECISI ON BY THE CIT(A) ON MERITS MIGHT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE LEVIABILITY O F PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). THOUGH, TECHNICALLY PENALTY PROCEEDING U /S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT CAN BE INVOKED DURING PENDENCY OF QUANTUM APPEA L, BUT TO AVOID MULTIPLICITY OF PROCEEDING AND UNNECESSARY HARASSME NT TO THE ASSESSEE IT IS ALWAYS ADVISABLE TO WAIT FOR THE DEC ISION OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES ON QUANTUM ADDITIONS. THEREFO RE, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT WE HAVE RESTORED THE QUANTUM APPEALS TO THE CIT(A) FOR DECIDING ON MERITS, IN OUR VIEW, IT WILL BE PROPER TO CONSIDER IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) DEPENDING UPON THE VIEW TA KEN BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES ON THE ADDITIONS MADE IN ASSE SSMENT. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY TAKE STEPS FOR LEVY OF PENALT Y U/S 271(1)(C), IF WARRANTED, DEPENDING UPON THE OUTCOME OF THE DECI SION OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN QUANTUM APPEALS. 14. IN THE RESULT, THESE APPEALS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. I.T.A. NO. 173 TO 175/HYD/2014 & 1426 TO 1428/HYD/2 013 M/S KOBASHI MACHINE TOOLS PVT. LTD. 9 15. TO SUM UP ALL THE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13/06/2014. SD/ - (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 13 TH JUNE, 2014 KV COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S KOBASHI MACHINE TOOLS PVT. LTD., PLOT NO. 61 C, ROAD NO. 16, PHASE -1, IDA, JEEDIMETLA, HYD. 2. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 (1), HYDERABAD. 3. THE CIT(A)-VII, HYDERABAD. 4. THE CIT-II HYDERABAD 5. THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD