REGUS BUSINESS CENTRE HYDERABAD PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1396/HYD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Regus Business Centre Hyderabad Private Limited, which appealed against the order of the CIT (A) dismissing their appeal as barred by limitation. The assessee argued that they did not receive the assessment order until a certified copy was supplied on 27/09/2013, and thus filed the appeal within the limitation period. The CIT (A), however, dismissed the appeal citing a delay of 176 days without justifiable reasons. The Tribunal noted that the CIT (A) did not verify the actual date of service of the assessment order before dismissing the appeal, despite having received remand reports from the Assessing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 26884 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Other Referred Cases: Radhey Shyam Chowdhary, H. vs. DCIT/ACIT in ITA No.119/Asr/2014
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SP CHIDAMBARAM
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Additional evidence; Period of limitation; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

" ITA No 1396 of 2024 Regus Business Centre Hyderabad P Ltd Page 1 of 8 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ DB-A‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1396/Hyd/2024 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Regus Business Centre Hyderabad Private Limited Hyderabad PAN:AADCR2556C Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward – 3 ( 1 ) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: Advocate SP Chidambaram राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 11/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/03/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated, 28/10/2024 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: ITA No 1396 of 2024 Regus Business Centre Hyderabad P Ltd Page 2 of 8 ITA No 1396 of 2024 Regus Business Centre Hyderabad P Ltd Page 3 of 8 3. At the time of hearing, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that, the learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine, as barred by limitation. The learned AR of the assessee has pointed out that, the assessee did not receive the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, till a certified copy was supplied to the assessee on 27/09/2023 and therefore, the assessee filed the appeal before the learned CIT (A) on 18/10/2013 within the period of limitation. The learned AR ITA No 1396 of 2024 Regus Business Centre Hyderabad P Ltd Page 4 of 8 has further submitted that, the assessee has also filed an affidavit before the Assessing Officer at the time of taking certified copy. Initially, the hearing of the appeal took place in physical mode and subsequently the case was migrated to the National Faceless Appeal Centre, vide notification dated 25/09/2020. The learned AR has further submitted that, during the physical hearing, the learned CIT (A) called for a remand report in respect of the additional evidence filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer also submitted 2 remand reports dated 29/06/20915 and 21/02/2020. The assessee also filed the reply to the remand report. However, instead of deciding the appeal on merits, the learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. The learned AR has also relied upon the decision of the Amritsar Benches of the Tribunal dated 15/05/2024 in case of Radhey Shyam Chowdhary, H. vs. DCIT/ACIT in ITA No.119/Asr/2014 and submitted that once the learned CIT (A) already called for a remand report, then the dismissal of the appeal on the ground of limitation is in violation of principles of natural justice. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. He has also pleaded that the matter may be remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication as the assessment was also passed ex-parte u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that the assessee filed the appeal before the learned CIT (A) after a ITA No 1396 of 2024 Regus Business Centre Hyderabad P Ltd Page 5 of 8 delay of 176 days. The assessee has not filed any application for condonation of delay before the learned CIT (A), therefore, the learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee being barred by limitation. He has relied upon the impugned order of the learned CIT (A). 5. We have considered the rival submission as well as relevant material available on record. In Form-35, the assessee has mentioned the date of communication of the assessment order as 27/09/2013 when the assessee received a certified copy of the assessment order. The assessee filed an affidavit before the Assessing Officer explaining the reasons for taking the certified copy of the assessment order that, the assessee did not receive the assessment order and came to know about the order when the assessee received the notice u/s 221(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 8/8/2013. The learned CIT (A) despite the fact that the 2 remand reports were called from the Assessing Officer which were also submitted by the Assessing Officer has dismissed the appeal of the assessee as barred by limitation by recording the facts in para 7.1 as under: “7.1 I have perused the appellant’s submissions and Form 35. It is seen that the appellant has not been able to furnish the sufficient and justifiable reasons for inordinate delay of 176 days. Furthermore, the appellant gave wrong date regarding service of assessment order as 27.09.2013 when actually the assessment order was passed much earlier on 19.03.2013. Generally, it does not take more than a week for receiving the assessment order and thereafter the appellant-assessee gets one month time for filing of appeal. Thus,, the appellant should have filed the appeal before 25/04/2013. The appellant did not give enough and justifiable reasons as to why the ITA No 1396 of 2024 Regus Business Centre Hyderabad P Ltd Page 6 of 8 assessment order was received by it nearly 155 days after passing of the assessment order on 19.03.2013. In the absence of any justifiable reasons, the delay is counted as 176 days. In any case there is a considerable delay in filing of appeal. It is not just and proper at this stage to raise the issue after a gap of more than 176 days. The appellant is desperately trying to avoid its mistake in late filing of the appeal stating that the order u/s.144/147 has been received on 27.09.2013. How come it received 155 days belatedly from the Department at the same address? This reason is not acceptable. It is the responsibility of the appellant to file appeal within the prescribed time as per the statute. Hence the appellant cannot advance the argument saying that the delay in filing the appeal was neither wanted nor deliberate. It is also observed that the appellant was non-cooperative to the department. It did not respond in the assessment proceedings where notices u/s. 142(1) and show cause notice were issued many times.” 6. Thus, the learned CIT (A) has acknowledged this fact that the assessee has given the date of communication in Form 35 as 27/09/2013 when the Assessing Officer issued certified copy of the assessment order. Once the assessee has stated in Form 35 that he received the assessment order only on 27/09/2013 and filed the appeal within the period of limitation from the said date of communication, then the learned CIT (A) ought to have ascertained the correct facts about the service of the assessment order from the Assessing Officer before the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in limine being barred by limitation. It is pertinent to note when the Assessing Officer was already asked twice for submitting the remand report, then before passing the impugned order, the learned CIT (A) could have very well asked the Assessing Officer to submit the report about the service of the assessment order. Thus, without ascertaining the correct facts ITA No 1396 of 2024 Regus Business Centre Hyderabad P Ltd Page 7 of 8 and status of the service, there was no reason to disbelieve the fact stated by the assessee in Form 35 as well as in the affidavit filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer for taking the certified copy of the assessment order. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the learned CIT (A) has passed the impugned order in haste without ascertaining the correct facts regarding the service of the assessment order to the assessee. Hence, the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after giving an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee to produce all the supporting details and documentary evidence. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 12th March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIJAY PAL RAO) VICE-PRESIDENT Hyderabad, dated 12th March, 2025 Vinodan/sps ITA No 1396 of 2024 Regus Business Centre Hyderabad P Ltd Page 8 of 8 Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Regus Business Centre (Hyderabad) (P) Ltd, Level 1 Mid Town Plaza, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500034 2 Income Tax Officer Ward 3(1) Signature Towers, Opp: Botanical Garden Road, White Fields, Kondapur, Hyderabad 500084 3 Pr. CIT – Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order "