Bharat Oil Company, Warangal V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Warangal

ITA 507/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7273 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-01-2020
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 12-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KIRAN KATTA
• Assessee Lawyers: T CHAITANYA KUMAR
• Section: 144

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. 507/HYD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014 - 15 BHART OIL COMPANY, WARANGAL. PAN: AAEFB 0815 C VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, WARANGAL. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI T. CHAITANYA KUMAR REVENUE BY: SRI KIRAN KATTA, DR DATE OF HEARING: 21/01/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31 /01/2020 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 3, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL N O. 0360/ITO - W - 3/WGL/CIT(A) - 3/2016 - 17, DATED 12/10/2017 PASSED U/S. 144 R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2014 - 15. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ORDER IS ERRONEOUS, ILLEGAL AND HELD CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTU NITY. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FOLLOWED ANY ELECTRONIC FORMAT. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY FOR FOLLOWING ELECTRONIC METHOD IN RUNNING THE BUSINESS OF THE APP ELLANT. 2 5. ANY OTHER GROUNDS / GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE - FIRM IS RUNNING A PETROL PUMP IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. BHARAT OIL COMPANY, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 11.02.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,05,680/ - . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS , NONE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD A.O. AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 144 OF THE ACT WHEREIN THE LD. AO MADE CERTAIN ADDITIONS AND THE ASSESSED INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 65,75,077 / - . 4 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. A.O., ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL MANUALLY, BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO FILE THE APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY WHI CH IS MANDATORY AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ELECTRONICALLY HE DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN LIMINI . 5 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6 . AT THE OUTSET, T HE LD.AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THIS WAS THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE THE APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY, BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL MANUALLY WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED IN THE STATUTE. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE COULD NOT REPRESENT ITS CASE BEFORE THE LD.AO DUE TO ILL - HEALTH OF MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE - FIRM. THEREFORE, HE PRAYED THAT 3 THE APPEAL MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD.AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION SO AS TO PROVIDE ONE MORE OPPORTUNI TY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PURSUE ITS APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 7 . THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HAND, VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER S OF THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORIT IES. 8 . HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR WHERE THE APPEAL WAS REQUIRED TO BE FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ELECTRONICALLY, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL WITHIN THE TIME BEFORE THE CIT(A) MANUALLY AND NOT ELECTRONICALLY. UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS CONSIDERED THE VERY SAME ISSUE IN W.P.NO. 21099/2018 IN THE CASE OF M/S. RAYALASEEMA BULLION AND COMMTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. CIT(A) - 3, HY DERABAD WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HA D DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO E - FILE ITS APPEAL WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME AS STATED IN THE ORDER AND FURTHER THE CIT (A) WAS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE SAME AND ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL ON MERITS ON THE COMPLIANCE BY THE A SSESSEE . THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WAS ALSO FOLLOWED BY THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 862/HYD/2018 VIDE ORDER DATED 12/03/2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12. FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE, RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORD ER OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: - 4 THE GRIEVANCE OF THE PETITIONER COMPANY IN THIS CASE IS WITH REGARD TO THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 3, HYDERABAD, THE FIRST RESPONDENT HEREIN, IN PASSING ORDER DATED 12/03/2018 IN ITA NO.0152/ITO - 3(2)/HYD/CIT(A) - 3/2016 - 17, IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14, WHEREBY THE PETITIONER - COMPANYS APPEAL WAS DISMISSED IN LIMINI ON THE GROUND THAT IT HAD FAILED TO E - FILE THE SA ID APPEAL AS MANDATORILY REQUIRED. HAVING RECEIVED INSTRUCTIONS IN THE MATTER, SRI VINOD KUMAR TADAKAMALLA, LEARNED SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE, WOULD INFORM THIS COURT THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT WAS DATED 29/03/2016 AND WAS RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER COMPANY ON 04/04/2016. AGGRIEVED THEREBY, THE PETITIONER COMPANY FILED AN APPEAL MANUALLY ON 03/05/2016. WHILE SO, RULE 45 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 (FOR BREVITY, THE RULES OF 1961) WA S AMENDED WITH EFFECT FROM 01/03/2016 REQUIRING FILING OF APPEALS IN E - FORMAT. HOWEVER, OWING TO THE GLITCHES IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS NEW PROCEDURE, THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, ISSU ED CIRCULAR NO.20/2016 DATED 26/05/2016 SEEKING TO MITIGATE THE INCONVENIENCE CAUSED TO THE TAXPAYERS ON ACCOUNT OF THE NEW REQUIREMENT OF MANDATORY E - FILING OF APPEALS AND EXTENDED THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING OF THE APPEALS WHICH WERE TO BE FILED BY 15/05/2 016 UP TO 15/06/2016. THE BOARD FURTHER DIRECTED THAT ALL E - APPEALS FILED WITHIN THE EXTENDED PERIOD SHOULD BE TREATED AS APPEALS FILED WITHIN TIME. IN THE CASE ON HAND, IT APPEARS THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER COMPANY WAS NOT RETURNED ON THE G ROUND THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN E - FILED IN TERMS OF THE AMENDED RULE 45 OF THE RULES OF 1962. HAVING KEPT THE APPEAL PENDING AFTER NUMBERING IT, THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY ULTIMATELY DISMISSED IT ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT E - FILED. WHEN THE CENTRAL BOARD OF D IRECT TAXES ITSELF SAW IT FIT TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR E - FILING OF APPEALS, HAD THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER COMPANY BEEN RETURNED ON THE GROUND IT WAS NOT FILED AS PER THE DUE PROCEDURE, THE PETITIONER COMPANY COULD HAVE TAKEN STEPS TO FILE IT WITHIN THE EXTENDED TIME. AS THE APPEAL WAS NOT RETURNED TO IT AND WAS NUMBERED, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE PETITIONER COMPANY WAS UNDER THE BELIEF THAT ITS APPEAL WOULD BE ENTERTAINED. THIS BEING THE FACT SITUATION, THE PETITIONER COMPANY CANNOT BE PENALIZED FOR N OT RESORTING TO E - FILING OF ITS APPEAL WITHIN THE EXTENDED TIME AS STIPULATED BY THE BOARD. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE WRIT PETITION IS ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12/03/2018 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN ITA NO. 0152/ITO - 3( 2)/HYD/CIT(A) - 3/2016 - 17. THE FIRST RESPONDENT SHALL RETURN THE SUBJECT APPEAL TO THE PETITIONER COMPANY WITHIN ONE WEEK FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF A COPY OF THIS ORDER AND THEREUPON, THE PETITIONER COMPANY SHALL E - FILE ITS APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE D UE PROCEDURE WITHIN TWO WEEKS THEREAFTER. IN THE EVENT THE PETITIONER COMPANY FILES ITS APPEAL THROUGH E - FORMAT AS DIRECTED SUPRA, THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY SHALL CONSIDER THE SAID APPEAL ON ITS OWN MERITS WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE LIMITATION ASPECT AS IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE SAID APPEAL WAS ORIGINALLY FILED WITHIN TIME. THE PETITIONER COMPANY IS AT LIBERTY TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS IN THE SAID APPEAL AT THE TIME OF PERSONAL HEARING. 5 PENDING MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS, IF ANY, SHALL STAND CLOSED IN T HE LIGHT OF THIS FINAL ORDER. NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. 9 . IT IS ALSO OBSERVED FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD DECIDED APPEAL IN LIMINE AND NOT ADJUDICATED ON MERITS. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. A.O. AND THEREFORE, THE LD. A.O. HAD PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER U/S. 144 OF THE ACT . UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, CONSIDERING THE LD. AR'S REQUEST TO REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. A.O., IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HER EBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. A.O. FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION AND THEREBY PROVIDING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES. AT THE SAME BREATH, WE ALSO HEREBY CAUTION THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTL Y 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 ON THE RECORD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY . 10 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST JANUARY, 2020 . SD/ - SD/ - (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 31 ST JANUARY, 2020 OKK 6 COPY TO: - 1) BHARAT OIL COMPANY C/O. T. CHAITANYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO.102, GOWRI APTS, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD - 029. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, WARANGAL. 3) THE CIT(A) - 3, HYDERABAD. 4) THE PR. CIT - 3, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE