Omics Online Publishing Private Limited , Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(1) , Hyderabad

ITA 371/Hyd/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9863 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 01-07-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 371/Hyd/2020 A.Y. 2012-13 Omics Online Publishing Private Limited, Hyderabad. PAN: AABCO 4182 H VS. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sri Sashank Dundu Revenue by Sri Sunil Goutam, Sr. AR Date of hearing: 11/01/2022 Date of pronouncement: 21/01/2022 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, A.M: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Hyderabad in appeal No. 10037/15-16/ITO, Wd 16(1)/CIT(A)- 4/Hyd/19-20, dated 28/02/2020 passed U/s. 144 r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised six grounds in its appeal and they are extracted herein below for reference: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad on the facts of the case and in law. 2 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have seen that the appellant has received an amount ofRs. 2,89,32,418/- from Omics INC, USA against which the appellant company has billed Rs. 1,89,32,418/- up to 31 st March, 2012 and the balance outstanding is only Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as on the balance sheet date and not Rs. 1,06,40,491/- as adopted in the appellate order. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in assuming the advance remittances received from M/s. Omics INC as amount received against invoices. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider the confirmation letter of M/s. Omics INC dated 10/03/2015 which was filed before the Assessing Officer during the course of remand proceedings. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 13,15,696/- in respect of the expenditure incurred under the head salaries and other benefits to the employees despite the fact that the appellant has submitted the details of salaries paid. 6. These and for any of the grounds that may be raised at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside in the interest of justice.” 3. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that there is a delay of 52 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR further submitted that due to Pandemic situation prevailed during the relevant period, the appeal could not be filed by the assessee within the stipulated time. Hence, it was prayed that the delay of 52 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal may kindly be condoned. After hearing the Ld. AR, we find that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause viz., severe Pandemic Situation during the relevant period and therefore the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed time limit. Considering the same, we hereby condone the delay of 52 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the case on merits. 3 4. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before us that the Ld. AO has passed ex-parte order without providing an opportunity to the assessee of being heard. On appeal the Ld. CIT(A) granted part relief to the assessee without giving due weightage to the submissions of the assessee. It was therefore pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. AO in order to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to pursue the appeal effectively. 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 responded to the notices issued by the Ld. AO. It was further submitted that even before the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee had not provided any cogent evidence in support of it’s case. Therefore, the Ld. CIT (A) had no other option but to decide the appeal based on the materials available on record. Hence, it was pleaded that the order passed by the Ld. Revenue Authorities does not call for any interference and appeal of the assessee may be dismissed. 5. 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. AO had given sufficient opportunities to the assessee. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the Ld. AO. Even before the Ld. CIT (A), there was no 4 effective representation by the Ld. AR to support the assessee’s case. Therefore, the Ld. CIT (A) was left with no other option except to adjudicate the appeal based on the material on record. In this situation, We do not find much strength in the arguments advanced by the ld. AR. However, before us the Ld. AR has pleaded that if an opportunity is given before the Ld. AO, the assessee may be able to substantiate it’s case with documentary evidence. Therefore, 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. AO in order to consider the appeal afresh 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. Revenue Authorities in their proceedings failing which the Ld. Revenue Authorities shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and merits based on the materials before them. It is ordered accordingly. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove. Pronounced in the open Court on the 21 st January, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (S.S. GODARA) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 21 st January, 2022. OKK 5 Copy to:- 1) Appellant: Omics Publishing Private Limited, 24 & 25, 2 nd Floor, Unity House, Abids, Hyderabad. 2) Respondent: Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 3) The CIT(A)-4, Hyderabad. 4) The Pr. CIT-4, Hyderabad. 5) The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 6) Guard File