Icomm Tele Limited , Hyderabad V. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

ITA 314/Hyd/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9417 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 21-06-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 244A; 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 314/Hyd/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 ICOMM TELE Limited, Hyderabad – 500 051. PAN: AAECA 1326 Q VS. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sri Kiran Manohar Revenue by Smt. D. Komali Krishna, DR Date of hearing: 16/09/2021 Date of pronouncement: 17/09/2021 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, A.M: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Hyderabad in appeal No. 10365/2018-19/CIT(A)-2, dated 29/01/2020 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2016-17. The appeal is filed with a delay of 86 days. Keeping in view of the Pandemic situation during the period we hereby condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to hear the appeal on merits. 2. The assessee has raised nine grounds in its appeal and they are extracted herein below for reference: 2 “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal exparte without providing proper opportunity to the appellant and without considering the written submissions filed. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the claim of the bad debts of Rs. 8,24,35,698/- debited to the profit and loss account is not an allowable deduction. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of 15% of the sundry creditors or Rs. 76,41,150/-. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,74,66,434/- worked out at 10% of the payments made to the sub-contractors. 6. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of loss on long term contract of Rs. 106,24,91,703/-. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance made U/s. 14A of the Act of Rs. 8,86,720/-. 8. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in taxing interest U/s. 244A of Rs. 37,88,540/-. 9. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 3. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before us by stating 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 of being heard. Ld. DR, on the other hand, vehemently opposed to the submissions of the Ld. AR and argued that sufficient 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) except filing the written submissions. Therefore, the Ld. CIT (A) had no other option but 3 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. 4. 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) has posted the case for hearing on several occasions however, none appeared on behalf of the assessee on the given dates of hearing. Therefore, the Ld. CIT (A) was left with no other option except to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte based on the material available on record. 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 as well as the issues involved in the appeal, 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 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. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove. 4 Pronounced in the open Court on the 17 th September, 2021. Sd/- Sd/- (S.S. GODARA) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 17 th September, 2021. OKK Copy to:- 1) ICOMM TELE Limited, Plot No.40 46 IDA Phase-1, Cherlpally, HCL Post, Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad – 500051. 2) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Signature Towers, Kondapur, Hyderabad – 500 084.. 3) The CIT(A)-2, Hyderabad. 4) The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad. 5) The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 6) Guard File