L V K K Chaitanya, Hyd, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Central Circle-7, (Presently Central Circle -2(4), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 624/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6008 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 24-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K J RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: V RAGHAVENDRA RAO
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B (SMC) : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.624/HYD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 MR. LVKK CHAITANYA HYDERABAD. PAN ACPPL1921L VS. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7 HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : MR. V. RAGHAVENDRA RAO FOR REVENUE : MR. K. J. RAO DATE OF HEARING : 25.11.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.11.2016 ORDER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)12, HYDERABAD DATED 25.02.2016 AND IT PERTAINS TO THE A.Y. 2009-2010. 2. BEFORE ME, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT THE MAIN ISSUE RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL REL ATE TO DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL BY THE CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THA T THE ADMITTED TAX WAS NOT PAID AS PER THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIE D IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 249(4) OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD , HE DRAWN MY ATTENTION TO FORM NO.26AS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ADMITTED TAX OF RS.2,03,155 WAS PAID ON 17 TH OCTOBER, 2014 AS PER THE RETURN OF INCOME. HE ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE SAID DATE FA LLS PRIOR TO THE FINALISATION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH IS DATE D 25.02.2016. FURTHER WHILE BRINGING MY ATTENTION AN ORD ER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF AKR CONSTRUCTIONS LTD., HYDE RABAD VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD IN ITA.NO.572/H YD/2015 DATED 30.07.2015 THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT WHEN THE ADMITTED TAX COULD NOT BE PAID FOR BONAFIDE REASONS AND WHEN THE SAME IS ULTIMATELY PAID BEFORE THE 2 ITA.NO.624/HYD/2016 MR. LVKK CHAITANYA, HYDERABAD. COMPLETION OF THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A) , THE AUTHORITIES SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL WITHOU T GOING INTO THE MERITS. EXPLAINING THE FACTS OF THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA), THE COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IN THE SA ID CASE THE PAYMENT WAS ACTUALLY PAID SUBSEQUENT TO THE FINALISATION OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN A WAY PRESENT CASE IS KEPT IN M UCH BETTER FOOTING ON FACTS. 3. ON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSAL OF THE R ELEVANT PARAS 5 TO 7 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA), I FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ABOVE CASE RELIED HEAVILY ON THE JUD GMENT OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SA TISH KUMAR SINGH [19 TAXMANN.COM 154 (KAR)]. CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, I AM OF THE VIEW THA T ASSESSEE HAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT PAYING THE ADMITTED TA X AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. FURTHER, I FIND TH AT THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE APPRECIATED THE SAME, ADMITTED THE APPEAL A ND DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MERITS INSTEAD OF DISMISSING IT. I , THEREFORE, REMAND THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO HIM TO ADMIT THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE AND ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE ON MERITS IN A FRESH REMAND PROCE EDINGS. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTL Y ALLOWED. 3. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.11.2016. SD/- (D.KARUNAKARA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 25 TH NOVEMBER, 2016 VBP/- 3 ITA.NO.624/HYD/2016 MR. LVKK CHAITANYA, HYDERABAD. COPY TO 1. MR. LVKK CHAITANYA, FLAT NO.202, DISTRICT JUDGES QUA RTERS ROAD NO.10, BANJARA HILS, HYDERABAD. 2. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), POSNETT BHAVAN, BASHEERB AGH, HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(A)-12, HYDERABAD. 4. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT B (SMC) BENCH, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.