Sunil Kumar Agarwal , Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Hyderabad

ITA 1920/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4865 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-01-2020
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 18-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R S ARVINDAKSHAN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 40(a)(ia)

Judgement Text

1 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. 1920 /HYD/20 1 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 14 - 15 SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL, HYDERABAD. PAN: ADIPA 8900 C VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(4), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI K.C. DEVDAS REVENUE BY: SRI R.S. ARVINDAKSHAN, DR DATE OF HEARING: 29/01/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18 /02/2020 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 6, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO.0309/2016 - 17/A3/CIT(A) - 6, DATED 01/02/2018 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2014 - 15. 2. THE ASSESSEE H AS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AS WELL AS FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE HONBLE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING DETAILED SUBMISSIONS WITH REGARD TO ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. 2 3. THE HONBLE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE A.O. ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE INTEREST PAYMENT OF RS. 49,66,255/ - BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AS THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS TO WHOM THE INTEREST PAYMENTS WERE MADE ARE COVERED BY SECTION 194A(3)(III) OF THE ACT. 4. THE HONBLE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE A.O. ERRED IN DISALLOWING INTEREST EXPENDITURE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 49,66,255/ - AND THEREFORE THE SAME OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DELETED. 5. A NY OTHER GROUND WILL BE RAISED THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 143 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN THIS REGARD, LD. AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY AND THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE AFFIDAVIT ARE EXTRACTED HEREINBELOW FOR REFERENCE: 5. I HAVE FILED AN APPEA L AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RECEIVED BY ME ON 27/02/2018 AND THE APPEAL IS DUE TO BE FILED BY 28/04/2018 WHEREAS THE APPEAL IS FILED ON 18/09/2018 WITH A DELAY OF 143 DAYS. THE REASON FOR THE DELAY IS THAT I AM O UT OF STATION IN CONNECTION WITH MY BUSINESS AND THEREFORE THE APPEAL COULD NOT BE SIGNED AND FILED. AFTER RETURNED IMMEDIATELY ARRANGED FOR PAYMENT OF APPEAL FEE AND FILED THE APPEAL. 6. THE DELAY IS QUITE UNINTENTIONAL AND INADVERTENT DUE TO CIRCUMSTANC ES BEYOND MY CONTROL.. 4. ON PERUSING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, WE DO NOT APPRECIATE THE REASONS ADDUCED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL . HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY CONDONE THE DELAY AND PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL ON MERIT . 3 5 . 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 ASSESSEE 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 SUBMISSIONS 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. C IT (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) NEED NOT BE INTERFERED AND THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 6 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL 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 ON THREE OCCASIONS I.E ., ON 28/12/2017, 12/01/2018 AND FINALLY ON 01/02/2018. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON THE GIVEN 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 MUCH STRENGTH IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE PRAYER OF THE LD. AR, AND IN THE 4 INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT (A) IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE APPE AL AFRESH ON MERITS BY PROVIDING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY 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. 7 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OP EN COURT ON 18 TH FEBRUARY, 2020 . SD/ - SD/ - (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 18 TH FEBRUARY, 2020 OKK COPY TO: - 1) SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL C/O. B. NARSING RAO & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, PLOT NO.554, ROAD NO.92, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD - 96. 2) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(4), HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT(A) - 6 , HYDERABAD 4) THE PR. CIT - 6 , HYDERABAD 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE