Samriddhi Petroproducts Private Limited , Hyderabad V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax , Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 87/Hyd/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1677 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P CHANDRA SEKHAR
• Keywords: Valuation report
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 87/HYD/2020 A.Y. 2014 - 15 SAMRIDDHI PETRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD. PAN: AARCS 2499 F VS. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI MOHD. AFZAL REVENUE BY SHRI P. CHANDRA SEKHAR, DR DATE OF HEARING: 14/06/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29 /06/2021 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY , A.M: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3, HYDERABAD IN F.NO. PR. CIT - 3/HYD/263/2018 - 19, DATE 28/02/2019 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 263 OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2014 - 15. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED EIGHT GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL AND THEY ARE EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: - 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER IS AGAINST THE LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE AND PROBABILITIES OF CASE. 2 2. THE LD. COMMISSIONER ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE ORDER U/S. 143(3) DATED 12/09/2016 AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 3. THE LD. COMMISSIONER ERRED IN ASSUMING THAT THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IE DISCOUN TED CASH FLOW METHOD, AS NOT CORRECT. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER ERRED IN ASSUMING THAT ESTIMATES MADE IN RESPECT OF DOMESTIC SALES ARE EXORBITANTLY INCREASED FROM YEAR TO YEAR IN THE VALUATION REPORT. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER ERRED IN ASSUMING THAT TH E LOANS, TOTALLING TO RS. 2,38,82,326/ - FROM VARIOUS PERSONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE VERIFIED THEREFORE, ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12/09/2016 MADE U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER ERRED IN ASSUMING THAT THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED LOAN S / ADVANCES IN CASH IN VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE IT ACT. 7. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER WITHOUT ESTABLISHING THE FACT THAT THE ORDER ORIGINALLY PASSED U/S. 143(3) IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVEN UE. 8. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, AMEND OR MODIFY THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, IF IT IS CONSIDERED NECESSARY. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US STATING THAT THE LD. PR. CIT H AS PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER U/S.263 OF THE ACT WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD PR. CIT IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE AS SESSEE OF BEING HEARD . 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, 3 NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ITS REPRESENTA TIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. PR. CIT. THEREFORE THE LD. PR. CIT 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. PR. CIT DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. 4. 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. PR. CIT HAD POSTED THE CASE ON THREE OCCASIONS. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON B EHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. PR. CIT ON THE DATES OF HEARING. THEREFORE, THE LD. PR. CIT 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. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE PRAYER OF THE LD. AR AND THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL , IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. PR. CIT IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERITS BY PROVIDING ONE MORE OPPORTUNI TY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. AT THE SAME BREATH, WE ALSO HEREBY CAUTION THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTLY CO - OPERATE BEFORE THE LD. LD. PR. CIT IN THE PROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH THE LD. PR. CIT SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH L AW AND MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON THE RECORD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 4 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 29 TH JUNE, 2021. SD/ - SD/ - (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 29 TH JUNE , 2021. OKK COPY TO: - 1) SAMRIDDHI PETRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, C/O. MOHD AFZAL, ADVOCATE, 402, SHERSONS RSIDENCY, 11 - 5 - 465, CRIMINAL COURT ROAD, RED HILLS, HYDERABAD 04. 2) DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), SIGNATURE TOWERS, KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD. 3) THE PR. CIT - 3, HYDERABAD. 4) ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 3, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE