Higrace Investments P Ltd., Hyderabad, Hyderabad V. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Hyderabad, Hyderabad

MA 42/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3220 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 20-04-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT MITRA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NOS. 39, 40 & 41/HYD/2015 IN MA NO. 141/HYD/2011 IN ITA NO. 588/HYD/2006 ASST. YEAR 2002-03 IN MA NO. 14 2 /HYD/2011 IN ITA NO. 111/HYD/2006 ASST. YEAR 2001-02 IN MA NO. 143/HYD/2011 IN ITA NO. 112/HYD/2006 ASST. YEAR 2005-06 M/S. VEEYES INVESTMENTS P. LTD., HYDERABAD [PAN : AABCV6591K] (APPLICANT) THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, HYDERABAD (RESPONDENT) M.A. NOS. 42, 43, 44, 45 & 46/HYD/2015 IN MA NO. 14 4 /HYD/2011 IN ITA NO. 733/HYD/2006 ASST. YEAR 2003-04 IN MA NO. 14 5 /HYD/2011 IN ITA NO. 590/HYD/2006 ASST. YEAR 2002-03 IN MA NO. 14 6 /HYD/2011 IN ITA NO. 619/HYD/2008 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 IN MA NO. 14 7 /HYD/2011 IN ITA NO. 113/HYD/2010 ASST. YEAR 2001-02 IN MA NO. 14 8 /HYD/2011 IN ITA NO. 114/HYD/2010 ASST. YEAR 2005-06 M/S. HIGRACE INVESTMENTS P. LTD., HYDERABAD [PAN : AAACH5018G] (APPLICANT) THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, HYDERABAD (RESPONDENT) 2 M.A. NOS. 39, 40 & 41/HYD/2015 42, 43, 44, 45 & 46/HYD/2015 47, 48, 49, 50 & 51/HYD/2015 52, 53, 54, 55 & 56/HYD/2015 M.A. NOS. 47, 48, 49, 50 & 51/HYD/2015 IN MA NO. 14 9 /HYD/2011 IN ITA NO. 732/HYD/2006 ASST. YEAR 2003-04 IN MA NO. 15 0 /HYD/2011 IN ITA NO. 591/HYD/2006 ASST. YEAR 2002-03 IN MA NO. 1 51 /HYD/2011 IN ITA NO. 616/HYD/2008 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 IN MA NO. 1 52 /HYD/2011 IN ITA NO. 118/HYD/2010 ASST. YEAR 2001-02 IN MA NO. 1 53 /HYD/2011 IN ITA NO. 119/HYD/2010 ASST. YEAR 2005-06 M/S. FINCITY INVESTMENTS P. LTD., HYDERABAD [PAN : AAACF3011D] (APPLICANT) THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, HYDERABAD (RESPONDENT) M.A. NOS. 52, 53, 54, 55 & 56/HYD/2015 IN MA NO. 1 5 4/HYD/2011 IN ITA NO. 731/HYD/2006 ASST. YEAR 2003-04 IN MA NO. 15 5 /HYD/2011 IN ITA NO. 589/HYD/2006 ASST. YEAR 2002-03 IN MA NO. 1 56 /HYD/2011 IN ITA NO. 617/HYD/2008 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 IN MA NO. 1 57 /HYD/2011 IN ITA NO. 121/HYD/2010 ASST. YEAR 2005-06 IN MA NO. 15 8 /HYD/2011 IN ITA NO. 120/HYD/2010 ASST. YEAR 2001-02 M/S. ELEM INVESTMENTS P. LTD., HYDERABAD [PAN : AAACE4370L] (APPLICANT) THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, HYDERABAD (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI K.C. DEVDAS, AR FOR REVENUE : SHRI RAJAT MITRA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 10-07-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17-07-2015 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. : THESE 18 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE FILED FOR RECALLING THE ORDER PASSED ON 23-09-2011 IN VARIOUS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS 3 M.A. NOS. 39, 40 & 41/HYD/2015 42, 43, 44, 45 & 46/HYD/2015 47, 48, 49, 50 & 51/HYD/2015 52, 53, 54, 55 & 56/HYD/2015 DISMISSING THEM EX-PARTE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTING TH ESE OBJECTIONS. ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPLICATIONS REQUEST ING TO RECALL THEM. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE, ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED 18 APPEALS IN RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES' CASES AND WHEN THE CASES WERE POSTED ORIGINALLY, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEES AND HENCE THE APPEALS WERE DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION VIDE COMMON ORDER DT. 18-10-2010. SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSEES HAVE PREFERRED MISCELLANEOU S APPLICATIONS ON 27-07-2011 WHICH WERE POSTED ON 23-09-2011. AS THER E WAS NO COMPLIANCE ON THE SAID DATE, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPL ICATIONS SEEKING RECALL OF THE EARLIER ORDER DT. 18-10-2010 WERE DIS MISSED AGAIN EX-PARTE. ASSESSEES PREFERRED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLI CATIONS REQUESTING FOR RECALLING THE ORDER DISMISSING THE MISCELLANEO US APPLICATIONS DT. 23- 09-2011. ASSESSEES IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION S HAVE PRAYED AS UNDER: '1. THE APPELLANT HAD FILED APPEALS BEFORE ITAT FOR THE AY. 2002- 2003 AND WAS NUMBERED AS ITA NO. 588/H/2006. THE APPEALS WERE DISPOSED OFF EXPARTE ON 18.10.2010. 2. MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS WERE PREFERRED ON 01 .03.2011 ON 27.07.2011 FOR RESTORATION OF APPEALS. 3. THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS WERE POSTED ON 2 3.09.2011 AND ON THIS DATE THE APPLICATIONS WAS DISMISSED ESPAR TE-ON THE GROUND THAT NONE APPEARED FOR THE APPELLANT'S ON 23.09.20 11. 4. THE APPELLANT WAS NEVER AWARE OF THE FACTS THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS WERE POSTED ON 23/09/20 11 AND DISMISSED. 5. THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ORDERS WHICH WERE DISMISSED WERE SERVED ON 25.02.2015. 6. EARLIER VIDE APPLICANT DATED 28.02.2011 WHICH W AS FILED ON 01.03.2011 THE APPELLANT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF ASSISTANT 4 M.A. NOS. 39, 40 & 41/HYD/2015 42, 43, 44, 45 & 46/HYD/2015 47, 48, 49, 50 & 51/HYD/2015 52, 53, 54, 55 & 56/HYD/2015 REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T 'B' BENCH, HYDERABAD ABOUT THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS OF THE APPELLANT. UNDER RULE 9A OF I.T.A. T RULES FORM NO. 36 IS TO BE AMENDED ON CHANGE OF ADDRESS. THIS RU LE CAME INTO FORCE ONLY ON 07.02.2012. THUS THERE WAS NO OCCAS ION TO APPLY THIS RULE. 7. THE DATE OF HEARING POSTING THE HEARING OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ON 23.09.2011 WAS PERHAPS SENT TO THE OLD ADDRESS WITHOUT NOTICING THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS COMMUNICATE D ON 28.02.2011 WHICH IS: PLOT NO. 80, ROAD NO. 9, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD 500 033. PHONE NO. 040 2355584 8. THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF DISTURBANCES IN THE BUS INESS OF THE ENTITIES. WE HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO MANY PROCRASTIN ATED ENQUIRIES BY INVESTIGATING AGENCIES THROWING OUR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OUT OF GEAR. 9. THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS WERE POSTED ON 2 3.09.2011. THE APPELLANT WAS NOT AWARE OF THE DATE OF POSTING. B ESIDES FOR THE REASONS STATED AT SERIAL NO. 6 MANY COMPLIANCES WE RE INADVERTENTLY NOT MADE. 10. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THIS IS THE FIRST TIM E IN THE ANNALS OF THE APPELLANT'S TAX MATTERS WHICH THE APPELLANT HA S BEEN COMPLYING ADMIRABLY FOR OVER THREE DECADES THAT SUCH AN EVEN T OF NON- COMPLIANCE HAS HAPPENED. THE APPELLANT ALWAYS RES PECTED THE RULE OF LAW AND COMPLIED WITH ALL STATUTORY NOTICE S. THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTION TO DEFAULT ON 2309.2011. 11. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THERE WILL BE A GROSS MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE IF THE APPEAL ORDER PASSED EXPARTE IS NOT RECALLED AND ON THE CONTRARY IF IT IS RECALLED THERE WILL BE AN ADJUDI CATION OF THE MATTER ON MERITS AFTER HEARING BOTH THE APPELLANT AND THE DEPARTMENT. 12. FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THESE APPLICATIONS I T IS EARNESTLY PRAYED THAT THE ORDER BE RECALLED AND THE APPEALS DISPOSED OFF ON MERITS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY'. SIMILAR OBJECTIONS WERE FILED IN ALL THE CASES. 5 M.A. NOS. 39, 40 & 41/HYD/2015 42, 43, 44, 45 & 46/HYD/2015 47, 48, 49, 50 & 51/HYD/2015 52, 53, 54, 55 & 56/HYD/2015 3. LD. COUNSEL INFORMED THAT ASSESSEES VIDE LETTER DT. 28-02-2011 INFORMED THE REGISTRY ABOUT CHANGE OF ADDRESS AND A S THERE IS NO PROVISION TO FILE REVISED FORM AT THAT TIME, THEY H AVE ONLY INTIMATED TO THE REGISTRY. HOWEVER, THEY ADDRESSED ANOTHER LETTER O N 29-08-2012 REQUESTING FOR STATUS OF THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION S AND THE REGISTRY INFORMED BY THE LETTER DT. 05-12-2012 THAT THE MISC ELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OFF BY THE ORDER DT . 23-09-2011 EX- PARTE. FROM THEN ONWARDS, REGISTRY IS BEING REQUES TED FOR FURNISHING THE COPIES OF THE ORDER IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS AND ULTIMATELY ON 06- 02-2015 CORRESPONDENCE MADE WITH ASST. REGISTRAR A ND THEN ONLY ASSESSEES OBTAINED THE COPY OF THE ORDER DISMISSING THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS AND THEY PREFERRED THE PRESENT MISCELL ANEOUS APPLICATIONS VIDE APPLICATION DT. 20-04-2015. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE REQUEST IS ONLY FOR RECALLING THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS S O THAT THEY CAN PURSUE THE MAIN APPEALS, IF THOSE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIO NS ARE ENTERTAINED. 4. LD. DR HOWEVER, OBJECTED TO STATE THAT ASSESSEES HAVE NOT PURSUED EITHER THE APPEALS OR THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION S. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE REQUEST OF ASSESSEES AND CONTENTS OF THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS. AS SEEN FROM THE MISCELLA NEOUS APPLICATIONS ITSELF, ASSESSEES HAVE NOT GIVEN THE CORRECT ADDRES S IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN FILED ON 27-07-2011. I N FACT THE APPLICATION ITSELF DOES NOT HAVE ANY ADDRESS. BY THE TIME ASSE SSEES INTIMATED THE NEW ADDRESS TO THE REGISTRY VIDE LETTER DT. 28-02-2 011, THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OFF ON 18-10-2011 ITSELF. THEREFORE, THE LETTER INTIMATING THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS WOULD NOT BE ON RECORD, AS THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OFF BY THE TIME. AT LEAST AT THE TIME OF PREFERRING THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS, ASSESSEES SHOULD HAVE G IVEN CORRECT 6 M.A. NOS. 39, 40 & 41/HYD/2015 42, 43, 44, 45 & 46/HYD/2015 47, 48, 49, 50 & 51/HYD/2015 52, 53, 54, 55 & 56/HYD/2015 ADDRESS. THE NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE EARLIER ADDR ESS GIVEN IN THE APPEALS. IT IS FOR ASSESSEES TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS F OR RECEIPT OF THE NOTICES. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COMPLIANCE TO THE NO TICES, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS AGAIN WERE DISMISSED EX-PARTE. EVEN A S SEEN FROM THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS, ASSESSEES' ADDR ESSES HAVE CHANGED FROM PLOT NO. 80, ROAD NO. 9, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERA BAD TO FORTUNE MONARCH HALL, 3 RD FLOOR, # 306, PLOT NO. 707 709, JUBILEE HILLS, R OAD NO. 36, HYDERABAD. EVEN FOR THE NEW ADDRESS NOW GI VEN, NO COMMUNICATION HAS BEEN FILED SEPARATELY. IN THE AB SENCE OF ANY CLEAR INDICATION AT WHAT PLACE ASSESSEES ARE FUNCTIONING AT PRESENT, IT MAY BE DIFFICULT FOR THE REGISTRY TO SERVE NOTICES ON THE PARTIES. UNLESS ASSESSEES MAKE ARRANGEMENTS ON ITS OWN OR FOLLOW UP WITH THE REGISTRY, THIS FORUM CANNOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR NON-SERVICE OF NOTIC ES/ORDERS. 6. BE THAT AS IT MAY, CONSIDERING THE SEQUENCE OF E VENTS AND THE FACT THAT ASSESSEES ARE UNDERGOING LOT OF DISTURBANCES I N THE BUSINESS BEING PART OF SATYAM GROUP OF CASES WHICH HAVE BEEN INVES TIGATED BY VARIOUS AUTHORITIES AND CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSE SSEES AND FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED ON 27-07-2011 CAN BE RESTORED BY RECALLING THE ORDER D T. 23-09-2011. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO PAY A COST OF RS. 1,000/- PER MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, AS THERE IS FAILURE ON I TS PART IN FURNISHING THE CORRECT ADDRESSES. ASSESSEES HEREIN ARE DIREC TED TO PAY COST OF RS. 1,000/- PER EACH MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, AS PER THE RULES. 7. IN THE RESULT, 18 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE ALLOWED AND FOLLOWING MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS PREFERRED IN M A NOS. 141 TO 158/HYD/2011 (18 IN NUMBER) ARE HEREBY RESTORED. R EGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO POST THESE IN DUE COURSE. ASSESSEES ARE ALSO DI RECTED TO INFORM THE 7 M.A. NOS. 39, 40 & 41/HYD/2015 42, 43, 44, 45 & 46/HYD/2015 47, 48, 49, 50 & 51/HYD/2015 52, 53, 54, 55 & 56/HYD/2015 CORRECT ADDRESS TO WHICH THE NOTICES ARE TO BE SENT BY THE REGISTRY, SO THAT QUESTION OF NON-SERVICE OF NOTICES DOES NOT AR ISE IN FUTURE. 8. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION S ARE ALLOWED WITH COSTS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 17 TH JULY, 2015 SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R HYDERABAD, DATED 17 TH JULY, 2015. TNMM 8 M.A. NOS. 39, 40 & 41/HYD/2015 42, 43, 44, 45 & 46/HYD/2015 47, 48, 49, 50 & 51/HYD/2015 52, 53, 54, 55 & 56/HYD/2015 COPY TO : 1. M/S. VEEYES INVESTMENTS P. LTD., FORTUNE MONARCH HALL, 3 RD FLOOR, #306, PLOT NO. 707-709, JUBILEE HILLS ROAD NO. 36, HYDERABAD. 2. M/S. HIGRACE INVESTMENTS P. LTD., FORTUNE MONARC H HALL, 3 RD FLOOR, #306, PLOT NO. 707-709, JUBILEE HILLS ROAD NO. 36, HYDERABAD. 3. M/S. FINCITY INVESTMENTS P. LTD., FORTUNE MONARC H HALL, 3 RD FLOOR, #306, PLOT NO. 707-709, JUBILEE HILLS ROAD NO. 36, HYDERABAD. 4. M/S. ELEM INVESTMENTS P. LTD., FORTUNE MONARCH H ALL, 3 RD FLOOR, #306, PLOT NO. 707-709, JUBILEE HILLS ROAD NO. 36, HYDERABAD. 5. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -I, HYDERABAD. 6. THE CIT(APPEALS)-I, HYDERABAD. 7. THE CIT(CENTRAL), HYDERABAD. 8. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD.