Transgene Biotek Limited, Medak V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sanga reddy

ITA 888/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7088 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARAYANA MURTHY NAIK
• Assessee Lawyers: SHILPA MANIYAR
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Time period of passing order; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 115JB; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B BENCH, HYDERABAD. BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L . P . SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) ITA NO. 888 /HYD/20 18 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 12 - 13 ) M/S. TRANSGENE BIOTEK LIMTIED, MEDAK . PAN AABCT 3840P ..APPELLANT. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, SANGAREDDY . ..RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHILPA MANIYAR. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NAR AYANA MURTHY NAIK (D.R.) DATE OF HEARING : 11.05 . 2021. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 .0 8 .2021. O R D E R PER SHRI S.S. GODARA, J.M. : THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASST. YEAR 2014 - 15 ARISES FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 2, HYDERABAD S ORDER DT. 27.03.2017 PASSED IN CASE NO. 48/CIT - 2/263(3)/2016 - 17 IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). 2 ITA NO. 888/HYD/2018 HEARD BOTH T HE PARTIES . C ASE FILE PERUSED. 2 . WE NOTICE AT THE OUTSET THAT ASSESSEE'S INSTANT APPEAL SUFFERS FORM 331 DAYS DELAY IN FILING. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION DT.7.5.2018 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND EXPLAINED THE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR IMPUGNED DELAY IN FILING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL. CASE LAW COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI & ORS, 1987 AIR 1353 (SC) AND UNIVERSITY OF DELHI VS. UNION OF INDIA, CIVIL APPEA L NO.9488 & 9489/2019 DATED 17 TH DEC., 2019, HOLD THAT SUCH A DELAY; SUPPORTED BY COGENT REASONS, DESERVES TO BE CONDONED SO AS TO MAKE WAY FOR THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. WE ACCORDINGLY HOLD THAT ASSESSEE'S IMPUGNED DELAY OF 331 DAYS IS NEITHER INT ENTION NOR DELIBERATE BUT DUE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND HIS CONTROL. CASE IS NOW TAKEN UP FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. 3 . COMING TO THE ASSESSEE'S SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE THAT THE PR. CIT HEREUNDER HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN INVOKING HIS 2 63 REVISION JURISDICTION, BOTH THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES TOOK US TO THE CORRESPONDING DETAILED DISCUSSION UNDER CHALLENGE READS AS UNDER : 3 ITA NO. 888/HYD/2018 4 ITA NO. 888/HYD/2018 5 ITA NO. 888/HYD/2018 4 . WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RIVAL PLEADINGS AGAINST AND IN SUPPORT OF THE FO REGOING REVISION DIRECTION S . WE FIND NO REASON TO SUSTAIN THE SAME. THIS IS FOR THE SOLE REASON THAT THE LEARNED PR. CITS DETAILED DISCUSSION MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEES PROFIT BEFORE TAX, INCLUSIVE OF VARIOUS GAINS, A SUM OF RS.71,25,16,724. AND THAT THE SECTION 115JB MAT COMPUTATION IS MORE THAN THE TAX UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED PR. CIT HAS NOWHERE NOT EVEN INDICATED AS TO IN WH AT TERMS THE ASSESSEE'S MAT COMPUTATION EX CEEDS THE NORMAL ONE SO AS TO EXIGIBLE TO 115JB OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED PR. CITS DIRECTION S QUA TH IS SOLE ISSUE ARE FOUND TO 6 ITA NO. 888/HYD/2018 BE VAGUE QUA THIS SOLITARY ISSUE ALLEGEDLY INVITING APPLICATION OF 115JB MAT COMPUTATIO N. 5 . LEARNED CIT - DR FURTHER CONTENDED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT THE IMPUGNED REVISION DIRECTION OUGHT TO BE UPHELD SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT ADEQUATELY EXAMINED THE IMPUGNED MAT COMPUTATION ISSUE. ON OUR QUERY, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NOT GIVEN SATISFACTORY REPLY UNDER WHICH LIMB OF 115JB EXPL.(1) THAT THE ASSESSEE'S FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAIN EXCEED ITS NORMAL COMPUTATION. WE THEREFORE QUOTE HON'BLE APEX COURT LAND MARK DECISION IN MALABAR INDUSTRI AL CO . LTD. VS. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) THAT AN ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE BOTH ERRONEOUS AS WELL A S CAUSING PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE; SIMULTANEOUSLY , SO AS TO BE SUBJECTED U/S. 263 REVISION MECHANISM. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THERE IS NOT EVEN AN INDICATION IN THE LEARNED PR. CITS ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE PIN - POINTING A SPECIFIC ERROR WHICH C OULD SAID TO HAVE PREJUDICE D TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. WE THEREFORE REVERSE HIS ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE AND RESTORE THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT DT.31.3.2015 AS A NECESSARY COROLLARY. 7 ITA NO. 888/HYD/2018 6 . WE LASTLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ALTHOUGH THE INSTANT APPEALS ARE BEING D ECIDED AFTER A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF HEARING AS PER RULE 34(5) OF THE IT(AT) RULES 1963, THE SAME HOWEVER, DOES NOT APPLY IN THE COVID LOCKDOWN SITUATION AS PER HON'BLE APEX COURT'S RECENT DIRECTIONS DATED 27 - 04 - 2021 IN M.A.NO.665/2021 IN SM(W )C NO.3/2020 'IN RE COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION' MAKING IT CLEAR THAT IN SUCH CASES WHERE THE LIMITATION PERIOD (INCLUDING THAT PRESCRIBED FOR INSTITUTION AS WELL AS TERMINATION) SHALL STAND EXCLUDED FROM 14TH OF MARCH, 2021 TILL FURTHER ORDERS. 7 . THIS ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24TH AUGUST , 2021. SD/ - SD/ - (L .P. SAHU) (S.S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DT. 24 .0 8 .2021. * REDDY GP COPY TO : 1. M/S. TRANSGENE BIOTEK LTD., 68 70, ANRICH INDUSTRIAL AREA, IDA, BOLLARAM, MEDAK DISTRICT. 2. ITO, WARD 1, SANGAREDDY. 3. PR. C I T - 2 , HYDERABAD. 4. ADDL. CIT , RANGE - 2, HYDERABAD. 5. DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SR. PVT. SECRETARY, ITAT, HYDERABAD.