Jaya Projects Limited, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 1697/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 87393 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 18-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMAKRISHNA BANDI
• Assessee Lawyers: V RAGHAVENDRA RAO
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT.ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1697/HYD/14 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 M/S. JAYA PROJECTS LTD., HYDERABAD (PAN AABCJ 6608 H) V/S. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI V . RAGHAVENDRA RAO RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAMAKRISHNA BANDI DR DATE OF HEARING 18.3.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20.3.2015 O R D E R PER P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : TH IS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) III, HYDERABAD DATED 5 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014, WHEREBY HE DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM EX - PARTE. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A COMPANY, WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION ON CONTRACT BASIS. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED BY IT ON 12.10.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,31,68,825. IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER S.143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 7.3.2013, THE TOTAL INCOME WAS COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.1,93,70,963, AFTER MAKING ADDITI ONS ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR LOSS IN RESPECT OF SEIZED ASSETS AND DISALLOWANCE OF CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES. I TA NO. 1697/H YD/20 14 M/S. JAYA PROJECTS LTD., HYDERABAD 2 3. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER S.143(3), AN APPEAL W AS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEA RNED CIT(A), AND SINCE THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY HIM, FIXING THE SAID APPEAL FOR HEARING FROM TIME TO TIME, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EX - PARTE, AFTER RECORDING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS IN PARAGRAPH 4 O F HIS IMPUGNED ORDER. 4. IN THIS CASE THE 1 ST NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED ON 28.07.2014 FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 06.08.2014. THE AR OF THE APPELLANT FILED AN ADJOURNMENT LETTER ON 05.08.2014 STATING THAT THE NECESSARY RECORDS HAVE TO BE OBTAINED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REPRESENTATION IN THE MATTER OF APPEAL AND SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT. THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 19.08.2014. ON 20.08.2014, THE AR FIELD AN ADJOURNMENT LETTER SEEKING ADJOURNMENT DUE TO SOME EVENT IN THE FAMILY AND SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT TO ANY DATE AT THE CONVENIENCE OF THE UNDERSIGNED. HENCE, T HE CASE WAS AGAIN ADJOURNED TO 04.09.2014. ON 04.09.2014, THE AR OF THE APPELLANT AGAIN FILED AN ADJOURNMENT LETTER FOR FURTHER ADJOURNMENT STATING THAT THE ACCOUNTANT IS ILL AND THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS PRACTICALLY DEFUNCT. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLAN T IS NOT KEEN TO PURSUE ITS OWN APPEAL AND VARIOUS REASONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN FOR NON - APPEARANCE ON FOUR OCCASIONS. I AM, THEREFORE, CONSTRAINED TO ADJUDICATE THE CASE BASED ON MATERIAL ON RECORD. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), ASSESSEE HAS P REFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAVING SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT ON THREE OCCASIONS WHEN ITS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), GIVING COGENT REASONS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO DRAW AN INFERENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT KEEN TO PURSUE ITS APPEAL AND DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EX - PARTE WITHOU T GI V ING PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, AND THIS POSITION CLEARLY MANIFEST FROM I TA NO. 1697/H YD/20 14 M/S. JAYA PROJECTS LTD., HYDERABAD 3 THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER REPRODUCED ABOVE IS NOT DISPUTED EVEN BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. WE ARE THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW T HAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER EX - PARTE WITHOUT GIVING PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. WE THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO HIM FOR DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AFRESH AFTER GIVING PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. AS UNDERTAKEN BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE US, THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT SEEK ANY MORE ADJOURNMENTS AND WILL EXTEND ALL THE COOPERATION IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO DISPOSE OF ITS APPEAL EXPEDITIOUSLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 20 TH MARCH, 2015 SD/ - SD/ - ( ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN ) ( P.M.JAGTAP ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER D T/ - 20 T H MARCH, 201 5 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. JAYA PROJECTS LTD., 8 - 3 - 669/10/7 & 8, F. NO.1, SRI DIVYA ENCLAVE, MPCH SOCIETY, YELLAREDDYGUDA, HYDERABAD 73. 2 . DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 2(1) HYDERABAD 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) III HYDERABAD 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX II, HYDERABAD 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S