Revolve Engineers Private Limited , Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Hyderabad

ITA 581/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7558 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 22-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: T CHAITNYA KUMAR
• Section: 143(3); 13

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 581/HYD/2019 A.Y. 2012 - 13 REVOLVE ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD. PAN: AACCR 3708 B VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI T. CHAITNYA KUMAR REVENUE BY: SHRI ROHIT MUJUMDAR, DR DATE OF HEARING: 08/03/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23 /03/2021 ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 3, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO. 0118/ITO - 3(2)/HYD/CIT(A) - 3/2015 - 16, DATED 06/02/2019 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S U/S. 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y.: 2012 - 13. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED EIGHT GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL AND THEY ARE EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: - 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT GIVING ANY FURTHER OPPORTUNITY. 2 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ADJOURNMENT LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF KANAKA DHARA VENTURES PVT LTD. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT OBSERVATIONS. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN TREATING AN AMOUNT OF RS. 32,12,842/ - AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 68,92,790/ - AS AGAINST THE INCOME / LOSS ADMITTED AT RS. 21,79,940/ - . 8. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US STATING THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT CONSIDER THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. A.O. IN HIS REMAND REPORT. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD A.O. IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD OTHERWISE, GREAT INJUSTICE WILL BE INFLICTED TO THE ASSESSEE. LD. D R, 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 ITS REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). THEREFORE 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) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. 3 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SU BMISSIONS 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 SEVERAL OCCASIONS. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFOR E THE CIT(A) ON THE 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. FURTHER, O N EXAMINING THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PROPERLY CO - OPERATED BEFORE THE LD.AO IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE OF WHICH ALL THE FACTS MIGHT NOT BEEN BROUGHT OUT . THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE PRAYER OF THE LD. AR, IN THE INTEREST O F JUSTICE, WE HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. AO 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 - OPERA TE BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THE IR PROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES 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 TH E RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 23 RD MARCH, 2021. 4 SD/ - SD/ - P (S.S. GODARA) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 23 RD MARCH, 2021 OKK COPY TO: - 1) REVOLVE ENGINEERS PVT LTD C/O. T. CHAITANYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO. 102, GOWRI APTS, URDU LANE, HIMAYAT NAGAR, HYDERABAD. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2), HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT(A) - 3, HYDERABAD. 4) THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE