Annapurna Business Solutions, Hyd, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 97/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4939 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-10-2019
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y V S T SAI
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Section: 143(3); 201; 263; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B ', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH , ACCUNTANT MEMBER I TA NO . 9 7 /HYD/2016 A SSESSMENT Y EAR : 201 1 - 1 2 ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYDERABAD. PAN A AGFA 5343 Q VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1) , HYDERABAD. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY: S H RI S. RAMA RAO REVENUE BY: S HRI Y.V.S.T. SAI DATE OF HEARING: 1 8 / 1 0 / 201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25 / 1 0 /201 9 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF PR. CIT(CENTRAL), HYDERABAD, DATED 1 7 / 03 /20 15 FOR AY 20 11 - 12. 2. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FIND THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 154 DAYS IN FILING THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. TO THIS EFFECT, THE ASSESSEE FILED A PETITION REQUESTING FOR CONDONATION OF THE SAID DELAY, WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/ S 144 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 30/03/2013. SUBSEQUENTLY, PR. CIT (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 AND PASSED AN ORDER ON 1 7 /03/2015 SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 144 OF THE ACT AND DIRECTED THE AO TO RE - DO THE ASSESSMEN T. THE ORDER U/S 263 WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 29/06/2015. THE AO COMPLETED THE REASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) RWS 263 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 31/12/2015. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE WAS UNDER BONAFIDE IMPRESSION THAT APPEAL, IF ANY, WOULD LIE WHEN I.T.A. NO S . 9 7 /H/16 ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD. 2 THE AO PASSED AN ORDER IN CONSEQUENCE TO THE DIRECTION OF LD. PR. CIT. HE, THEREFORE APPROACHED THE ADVOCATE ON 27/01/2016 WITH THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) RWS 263 OF THE ACT. THE ADVOCATE, ADVISED THE ASSESSEE THAT THE APPEAL HAS TO BE FILED AGAINST THE ORDER P ASSED BY THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL) U/S 263 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL IS FILED BEFORE THE ITAT ON 29/01/2016. 2.1 REFERRING TO THE ABOVE FACTUAL BACK GROUND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY OF 154 IN FILING THE APPEAL OCCU RRED AND THE SAME BE CONDONED AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING AND ADJUDICATION, AS THE REASONS WERE BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE AND IS NOT INTENTIONAL. 3. THE DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE CONDONATION OF DELAY. 4. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE TO CONDONE THE DELAY IS THAT HE WAS NOT AWARE THAT THE APPEAL LIES AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 263, THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL) HAD ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH, THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED REPLY BY WAY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON 12/0 3 /2015 AND THE PR. CIT SERVED HIS ORDER ON THE ASSESSEE ON 29/06/2015. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT HAVING APPEARED BEFORE THE PR. CIT AND FILED THE DETAILS BEFORE HIM AND RECEIVED THE ORDER FROM PR.CIT. WHAT WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND IS AFTER RECEIVING THE ORDER FROM PR. CIT, WHY HE WAS NOT APPROACHED THE ADVOCATE, WAS NOT EXPLAINED B EFORE US. HE HAS ONLY APPROACHED THE ADVOCATE, WHEN HE RECEIVED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143(3) RWS 263 OF THE ACT, ON 31/12/2015. IN OUR CONSIDERED THE VIEW, THE I.T.A. NO S . 9 7 /H/16 ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD. 3 EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL IS NOT BONAFIDE AND THEREFORE, IT IS NOT A FIT CASE TO CONDONE THE DELAY AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS NOT ADMITTED. 5. EVEN ON MERITS OF THE CASE ALSO, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS BEFORE THE AO, DUE TO WHICH, THE AO PASSED THE ORDER U/S 144 OF THE ACT BASED ON THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 6 . THEREAFTER, THE PR. CIT(CENTRAL) RIGHTLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND DIRECTED THE AO TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT AS PER LAW, VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 17/03/2015. THEREFORE, EVEN ON MERITS ALSO THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE ANY CASE TO ARGUE. 7 . IN THE R ESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH OCTOBER , 201 9. SD/ - (D.S. SUNDER SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - ( V. DURGA RAO ) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 25 TH OCTOBER , 201 9. KV COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, C/O SRI S. RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO. 102, SHRIYAS ELEGANCE, 3 - 6 - 643, STREET NO. 9, HIMAYAT NAGAR, HYDERABAD 500 029. 2 . DC IT , CENTRAL CIRCLE 2( 1 ) , POSNETT BHAVAN, HYDERABAD . 3 . PR. CIT (CENTRAL) , HYDERABAD 4. ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE 2, HYDERABAD. 5. THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6. GUARD FILE