Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad V. Bharathi Cement Corporation Private Limited, Hyderabad

MA 47/Hyd/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6588 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-04-2018
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M KIRANMAYEE SR
• Assessee Lawyers: DEPT SHRI S KALYANA SUNDARAM
• Keywords: Extension of stay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 47/HYD/2017 IN M.A. NO. 21/HYD/2017 IN S.A. NO. 13/HYD/2016 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 696/HYD/2014) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD VS M/S. BHARATHI CEMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD [PAN: AADCR3079G] (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR REVENUE : SMT. M. KIRANMAYEE, (SR. STANDING COUNSEL FOR DEPT.) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI S. KALYANA SUNDARAM, AR DATE OF HEARING : 20-04-2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31-05-2018 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS PREFERRED ON MISC ELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 21/HYD/2017, WHEREIN DISMISSING THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION RAISED ON THE NON-EXISTING STAY ORDER, THE BENCH HAS LEVIED COST AS UNDER: 8. SINCE THE AO AND PR.CIT CHOSE TO PREFER A MISCE LLANEOUS APPLICATION ON A NON-EXISTING ORDER AND APPROACHED THIS FORUM IN THE GUISE OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, WE ARE OF THE O PINION THAT COST SHOULD 2 M.A. NO. 47/HYD/2017 BE LEVIED ON BOTH AO AND THE PR.CIT, SO THAT THEY W OULD BE CAREFUL IN APPROACHING THIS FORUM IN THE RIGHT CASE FOR A RIGH T CAUSE. WE HEREBY LEVY A COST OF RS. 1,000/- (RUPEES ONE THOUSAND ONL Y) ON THE AO AND ANOTHER RS. 1,000/- ON PR.CIT-2, HYDERABAD WHICH SH OULD BE PAID OUT OF THEIR SALARY AND REMITTED TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA WI THIN A PERIOD OF SIX WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. COMPLIANCE SHOU LD BE INTIMATED TO THE REGISTRY FORTHWITH BY THE DDO OF THE OFFICERS. WITH THESE ORDERS, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS DISMISSED. 2. REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION RUNNING TO FIVE PAGES WITH A PRAYER THAT A) TO CORRECT THE ERRORS APPARENT FROM RECORD; B) TO EXPUNGE THE ADVERSE COMMENTS ON THE OFFICERS AND CA NCEL THE COSTS LEVIED ON THE OFFICERS; 3. WHILE HEARING THE CASE, WE HAVE SPECIFICALLY ASKE D THE LD. COUNSEL AS TO A) WHY MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ON MISCELLANEOUS APPLI CATION SHOULD BE ENTERTAINED; B) WHAT ARE THE ERRORS WHICH ARE SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED AN D ; C) WHY THE ADVERSE REMARKS SHOULD BE EXPUNGED; 4. EVEN THOUGH LD. COUNSEL TRIED TO RELY ON THE DECISIO N OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KARAN & CO., VS. ITAT [253 ITR 131], WE NOTICED THAT THE SAID JUDGMENT DOES N OT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AT ALL. LD. COUNSEL, HOWEVER, RESTRICTED HER ARGUMENTS ONLY FOR EXPUNGING THE ADVERSE COMMENTS AN D CANCEL THE COST LEVIED ON THE OFFICERS. 3 M.A. NO. 47/HYD/2017 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE DO NOT SE E ANY REASON TO EXPUNGE ADVERSE COMMENTS. FIRST OF ALL, IT W AS NOT EXPLAINED (I) WHY THE REVENUE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE EXTENSION OF STAY BEYOND 365 DAYS ON THE VERY FIRST ORDER WHICH GRANTED THE STAY BEYOND THAT PERIOD. (II) REVENUE ALSO HAS NOT EXPLAINED WHY A MISCELLANE OUS APPLICATION WAS PREFERRED WHEN SUBSEQUENTLY SEPARATE ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED, AFTER EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS GRANTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. III) REVENUE ALSO HAS NOT EXPLAINED WHY THE AO COULD NOT BRING IT TO THE NOTICE OF PRINCIPAL CCIT WHO DIRECTED THE OFF ICERS TO PREFER A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AND IV) IT IS ALSO NOT EXPLAINED WHY THE OFFICERS HAD TO PREFER A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ON THIS ORDER WHEN FURTHER ORDERS HAVE BEEN ISSUED SUBSEQUENTLY ALSO. SINCE NO EXPLANATION WAS FORTHCOMING, WE DO NOT FEEL IT NECESSITY TO EXPUNGE THE ADVERSE COMMENTS MADE IN THE IMPUGNED OR DER. 6. HOWEVER, SINCE THE LD. COUNSEL SPECIFICALLY PLEA DED FOR WITHDRAWAL OF COSTS LEVIED, CONSIDERING THAT OFFICERS MUST HAVE REALISED THE FUTILITY OF PREFERRING UN-NECESSARY LITIG ATION AND ON THE HOPE THAT IN FUTURE THEY WILL DESIST SUCH ILLOGICAL 4 M.A. NO. 47/HYD/2017 APPEALS/APPLICATIONS OR REQUESTS, WE HEREBY WITHDRAW TH E COSTS LEVIED ON THE AO AND PR.CIT-2, WITH A CAUTION THAT THIS FORUM WILL NOT HESITATE TO LEVY THE COST AGAIN, IF SUCH THINGS ARE R EPEATED IN FUTURE. 7. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS PARTLY A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST MAY, 2018 SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER HYDERABAD, DATED 31 ST MAY, 2018 TNMM 5 M.A. NO. 47/HYD/2017 COPY TO : 1. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD. 2. M/S. BHARATHI CEMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED , 8-2-696, CARMEL POINT, ROAD NO. 12, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD. 3. CIT (APPEALS)-III, HYDERABAD. 4. CIT-II, HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.