Golden Star Facilities and Services Private Limited , Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1746/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0741 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-12-2019
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 27-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ESTHER N HANGAL
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM; A KIRAN
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 2

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. 1746/HYD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014 - 15 M/S. GOLDEN STAR FACILITIES AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, 1 - 98/9/3/9 & 10, PLOT NO.25 & 26, MEGHANA S 2 ND FLOOR, IMAGE GARDENS ROAD, MADHAPUR, HYDERABAD - 081 PAN: AADCG 2534 K VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2), SIGNATURE TOWERS, KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI A. KIRAN & A.V. RAGHURAM REVENUE BY: SMT. ESTHER N. HANGAL, DR DATE OF HEARING: 1 6 /12/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16 /12/2019 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 6, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO. 10044/2018 - 19/B2/CIT(A) - 6, DATED 13/07/2018 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2014 - 15. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUN DS IN ITS APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DISMISSING THE APPEAL EX - PARTE WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT IS ILLEGAL APART FROM BEING PASSED IN GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE 2 COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGH T TO HAVE GRANTED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT FOR PUTTING FORTH HIS CASE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.74,87,120 TOWARDS EPF AND ESI WHICH WERE OTHERWISE AL LOWABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 438 OF THE ACT. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN RELYING ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA FOR CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IGNORING THE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL DECISIONS BASED ON OTHER HI GH COURT DECISIONS, WHICH ORDERS WERE BINDING ON HIM. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE LAW LAID DOWN BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF VEGETABLE PRODUCTS WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHERE THERE ARE TWO CONFLICTING VIEWS, THE DECISION WHI CH IS IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE HAS TO BE FOLLOWED. 4. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASS ESSEE OF BEING HEARD. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD CIT (A) IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PURSUE THE APPEAL . LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIO NS OF THE LD. AR AND ARGUED THAT SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER, ON THE GIVEN DATES OF HEARING, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO PASS EX - PARTE ORDER BASED ON THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HENCE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 3 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIV AL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. ON EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR. THE LD. CIT (A) HAD POSTED THE CASE O N THREE OCCASIONS I.E., 24/4/2018, 21/5/2018 AND FINALLY ON 11/07/2018 . HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON THE ABOVEMENTIONED DATES OF HEARING. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT (A) WAS LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL EX - PARTE. IN THIS SITUATION, WE DO NOT FIND M UCH STRENGTH IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE PRAYER OF THE LD. AR, AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT (A) IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL AFRESH BY PROVIDING ONE MORE OPP ORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. AT THE SAME BREATH, WE ALSO HEREBY CAUTION THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTLY CO - OPERATE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) IN THE PROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH THE LD. CIT (A) SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON THE RECORD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH DECEMBER , 2019. SD/ - SD/ - (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 16 TH DECEMBER , 2019 4 OKK COPY TO: - 1) M/S. GOLDEN STAR FACILITIES AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, C/O. A.V. RAGHURAM & P. VINOD, ADVOCATES, 610, BABUKHAN ESTATE, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD - 1. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), SIGNATURE TOWERS, KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT (A) - 6, HYDERABAD. 4) THE PR. CIT - 2, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE