Suguna Metals Limited, Hyderabad, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Circle-3(2), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 1484/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6167 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 04-11-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: U MINICHANDRAN
• Assessee Lawyers: B SAI PRASAD

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1484/HYD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 M/S SUGUNA METALS LTD, HYDERABAD. PAN- AALCS0546B VS. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2) HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI B. SAI PRASAD REVENUE BY : SMT. U. MINI CHANDRAN DATE OF HEARING : 24-01-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03-02-2017 ORDER PER P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M.: IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A) 3, HYDERABAD, DATED 21-09-2016, DISPOSING OF THE APPEALS EX-PARTE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA L)-3 IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE C1T(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.5,62,43,091/- MADE TOWARDS RE-COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFITS FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 115JB. 3. THE CLT(A) ERRED IN RELYING ON THE DECISIONS MENTIO NED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, AS THE SAID ARE DISTINGUISHAB LE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 4. THE CLT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEA L ON THE GROUND OF NON-REPRESENTATION SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN ADJOURNMENT LETTER ON 29-8-2016 WHICH SHOULD HAVE B EEN 2 ITA NO. 1484/HYD/2016 SHRI SUGUNA METALS LTD., HYDERABAD. CONSIDERED AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE 5. CRAVE LEAVE TO URGE / RAISE ANY GROUND THAT MIGH T BE NECESSARY AT THE TIME HEARING. IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 4, THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE COUNSEL WHO APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(A) TO STATING THAT ON 29-08-2016, TH E ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT, BUT, THE CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL EX-PARTE WITHOUT TAKING THE SAID ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION INTO FOR CONSIDERATION . 2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR REMA ND TO THE CIT(A) TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT ITS CASE ON MERITS AND DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WIT H LAW ON MERITS. 3. THE LD. DR HOWEVER OPPOSED THE SET ASIDE STATING THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES OF REPRESENTATION WERE GIV EN TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT ON ALL THE DATES O F HEARING EXCEPT FOR 21-07-2016, THE ASSESSEE HAD APPEARED AN D FILED APPLICATIONS FOR ADJOURNMENT AND THE CIT(A) WAS PLE ASED TO ADJOURN THE HEARING. EVEN ON 28-08-2016, THE ASSES SEE HAD FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT, AND THERE IS AN 3 ITA NO. 1484/HYD/2016 SHRI SUGUNA METALS LTD., HYDERABAD. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE O/O THE CIT(A)-3 FOR THE RE CEIPT OF SUCH AN APPLICATION. THEREFORE, WE ARE SATISFIED T HAT THE NON APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 29-08-2016 BEFORE THE CIT(A) IS NOT ENTIRELY CORRECT. IN VIEW OF THE SAME , WE ARE INCLINED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND R EMAND THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) TO BE DECIDED ON ME RITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEES A PPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 RD FEBRUARY , 2017. SD/-B SD/- (S RIFAUR RAHAMN) (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 3 RD FEBRUARY , 2017. KRK 1) M/S. SUGUNA METALS LTD, 8-2-686/K/26/5, ROAD NO.2 BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD 2) DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD 3) CIT(A) -3, HYDERABAD 4) PCIT-3,HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., H YDERABAD. 6) GUARD FILE