M/s. Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad V. Addl.C.I.T, Range-2, Hyderabad

ITA 1847/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5538 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D SUDHAKAR RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: V SHIV KUMAR; C S SUBRAHMANYAM
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1847/HYD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007(08 M/S. ANDHRA PRADESH MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. HYDERABAD PAN: AAACT7391N VS. THE ADDL. CIT RANGE(2 HYDERABAD [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] APPELLANT BY: SRI C.S. SUBRAHMANYAM & SRI V. SHIV KUMAR RESPONDENT BY: SRI D. SUDHAKAR RAO DATE OF HEARING: 22.01.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22.01.2014 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A), VIJAYAWADA DATED 31.8.2012 FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2007(08. 2. THE REVENUE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IS AGAINST L AW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE AND PROBABILITIES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED C.LT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 29,56,518/- BEING THE AMOUNT OF EXCESS PROVISION AD DED BACK, THOUGH THE SAID AMOUNT REPRESENTS PROVISION M ADE IN EARLIER YEARS AND ALREADY BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE REL EVANT YEARS. ITA NO. 1847/HYD/2012 M/S. APMDC =================== 2 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ENHANCING THE ADDITION OF RS. 29,56,518/- TO RS. 51,05,391 WITHOUT AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT AS REQUIRED U/S. 251(2 ) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 45,45,193 REPRESENTING ACTUAL PAYMENTS OF EARNED LE AVE ENCASHMENT ON THE GROUND THAT APPELLANT HAS NOT FUR NISHED SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION OR ADDUCED ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTIONS. 5. THE LEARNED C.LT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 1,21 ,501 REPRESENTING ACTUAL PAYMENTS OF MEDICAL L EAVE ENCASHMENT ON THE GROUND THAT APPELLANT HAS NOT FUR NISHED SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION OR ADDUCED ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTIONS. 3. THERE WAS A DELAY OF 50 DAYS IN FILING THIS APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE FILED A PETITION STATING THAT THE DELAY HA D OCCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF ITS CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT VIZ., SRI C.S. SUBRAHMANYAM OF M/S. M. BHASKARA RAO & CO., CAS. A CCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ORDER WAS SERVED ON M/S. M. BH ASKARA RAO & CO., CAS, HYDERABAD ON 2.9.2012. HOWEVER, THE SA ME WAS NOT COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE'S COUNS EL HAS NOT PROPERLY NOTICED THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. BEING SO, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PROPERLY ADVISED BY THE LEARNED AR TO FILE THE APPEAL IN TIME. TO THIS EFF ECT THE ASSESSEE FILED A PETITION AND AN AFFIDAVIT FROM SRI C.S. SUB RAMANYAM, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. 4. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE REASONS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS PETITION. IN OUR OPINION, THE REAS ONS PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE ARE BONA(FIDE. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE IN CLINED TO ITA NO. 1847/HYD/2012 M/S. APMDC =================== 3 CONDONE THE DELAY OF 50 DAYS IN FILING AND ADMIT TH E APPEAL FOR ADJUDICATION. 5. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AR PLEADED THAT THE ISSUES R AISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT PROPERLY EXAMINED BY THE LO WER AUTHORITIES AND PRAYED THAT AN OPPORTUNITY MAY BE G IVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE CASE RATHER THAN DECIDING O N MERIT. 6. THE LEARNED DR NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION FOR GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND TO REMIT THE CASE B ACK TO THE AO FOR EXAMINATION OF EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSE SSEE TO ESTABLISH PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR OPINION, THE PLEA OF TH E ASSESSEE IS APPROPRIATE. THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE ARE NOT PROPERL Y APPRAISED BY THE AO AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE ARE INCLIN ED TO REMIT THE ENTIRE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSI DERATION, AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND JANUARY, 2014. SD/( (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/( (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED THE 22 ND JANUARY, 2014 TPRAO ITA NO. 1847/HYD/2012 M/S. APMDC =================== 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. ANDHRA PRADESH MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORAT ION LTD., 3 RD FLOOR, REAR BLOCK, HMWSSB PREMISES, KHAIRATABAD, HYDERABAD. 2. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE(2, IT TOWERS, AC GUARDS, HY DERABAD. 3. THE CIT(A), VIJAYAWADA 4. THE CIT(II, HYDERABAD 5. THE DR BENCH 'B', ITAT, HYDERABAD