Bio-chemical & Synthetic Produccts Pvt Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad V. ACIT, Circle-1(3), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 635/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6295 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 04-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: U MINICHANDRAN
• Assessee Lawyers: D V ANJANEYULU; P PALLAVIKA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 139

Judgement Text

ITA NO 635 OF 2016 BIOCHEMICAL AND SYNTHETIC PRODUC TS P LTD HYDERABAD PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.635/HYD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) BIOCHEMICAL & SYNTHETIC PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED HYDERABAD PAN: AAACB 9753C VS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(3) HYDERABAD FOR ASSESSEE SHRI D.V.ANJANEYULU & MS.P.PALLAVIKA FOR REVENUE SMT. U.MINICHANDRAN, DR O R D E R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y 2006-07. IN TH IS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF T HE CIT (A) IN DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL BY NOT CONDONING T HE DELAY OF 123 DAYS IN FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) . 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE-CO MPANY, WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING O F BULK DRUGS AND INTERMEDIARIES, FILED ITS E-RETURN OF INCOME U/ S 139 OF THE ACT ON 20.11.2006 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.2,29,32,976 . DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE A O MADE DISALLOWANCES U/S 14A AND 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. AGG RIEVED, THE DATE OF HEARING : 25.08.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.09.2016 ITA NO 635 OF 2016 BIOCHEMICAL AND SYNTHETIC PRODUC TS P LTD HYDERABAD PAGE 2 OF 3 ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) ALON G WITH AN APPLICATION SEEKING CONDONATION OF A DELAY OF 123 D AYS. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF D ELAY ALONG WITH AN AFFIDAVIT EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY. THE CIT (A), OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE AFFID AVIT AND HAS ONLY FILED A LETTER OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR DATED 15.02.2006, HAS REFUSED TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND DISMISSED THE APPE AL. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION O F DELAY ALONG WITH THE APPEAL AND HAS SUBSEQUENTLY FILED A LETTER DATED 15.02.2006 REITERATING THE REASONS MENTIONED THEREI N. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (A) HAS ERRONEOUSLY HELD THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE AFFIDAVIT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED T HAT THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A) (IA) WERE INTRODUCED AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE A PPLICABILITY OF THE SAID PROVISIONS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOUGHT OPINION FROM VARIOUS COUNSEL AT HYDERABAD AND ALSO THE COUNSELS IN BOMBAY AS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO FROM BOMBAY, BEFORE FILING OF THE APPEAL. IT I S SUBMITTED THAT ONLY AFTER SUCH ADVICE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN A PPEAL AND THIS EXERCISE HAS RESULTED IN THE DELAY OF 123 DAYS. WE FIND THAT THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND THE AFFIDA VIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALSO STATED THE SAME REASONS AND THAT THE AFFIDAVIT IS DATED 2.5.2009. THE LEARNED DR, HOWEVER, OPPOSED TH E CONDONATION OF DELAY. ITA NO 635 OF 2016 BIOCHEMICAL AND SYNTHETIC PRODUC TS P LTD HYDERABAD PAGE 3 OF 3 4. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AND ALSO THE AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE CIT (A) AND ALSO A LETTER DATED 02.05.2009 I.E. ON THE SAME DAY. WE ARE ALSO SATISFIED THAT TH E REASONABLE CAUSE HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATIO N OF DELAY. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE ARE INCLINED TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL AND REMAND THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF T HE CIT (A) FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS AND IN ACCORD ANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE GIVE N A FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02 ND SEPTEMBER, 2016. SD/- SD/- (B.RAMAKOTAIAH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 02 ND SEPTEMBER, 2016. VINODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1 BIO CHEMICAL & SYNTHETIC PRODUCTS P. LTD., HYDERA BAD. C/O. M/S. ANJANEYULU & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 30, BHAGYA LAKSHMI NAGAR, GANDHI NAGAR, HYDERABAD 500 080. 2 ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD. 3 CIT (A)-1, 2 ND FLOOR ANNEXE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD 500 004. 4 PR. CIT-1, HYDERABAD. 5 THE DR, ITAT B BENCH, HYDERABAD 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER