Semantic Space Technologies Ltd., Hyderabad v. ACIT, Hyderabad

ITA 1132/HYD/2009 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 29-12-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 113222514 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAGCS6868P
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 1132/HYD/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant Semantic Space Technologies Ltd., Hyderabad
Respondent ACIT, Hyderabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-12-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 29-12-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 16-12-2010
Next Hearing Date 16-12-2010
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 27-11-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B' HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1132/HYD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) M/S. SEMANTIC SPACE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. HYDERABAD PAN: AAGCS6868P VS. ASST. CIT CIRCLE 3(1) HYDERABAD APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI CHAITANYA KUMAR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI K.E. SUNIL BABU O R D E R PER NRS GANESAN JM: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF CIT(A)-IV HYDERABAD DATED 6.6.2008 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. SHRI CHAITANYA KUMAR THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF 1 YEAR 5 MONTHS AND 22 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSEE HANDED OVER THE IMPUG NED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) TO HIM FOR FILING THE APPEAL ALONG WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR A.Y. 2004-05. BUT ON THE DATE OF HANDING OVER THE ORDER THE COUNSEL'S OFFICE WAS SHIFTED TO A NEW PREMISES. IN THE PROCE SS OF SHIFTING THE OFFICE TO THE NEW PREMISES THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF TH E CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS LOST SIGHT AND MISPLACED. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY PR EPARED THE APPEAL I.T.A. NO. 1132/HYD/200 9 M/S. SEMANTIC SPACE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. ============================== 2 FOR A.Y. 2004-05 ALONE AND THE SAME WAS FILED BEFOR E THIS TRIBUNAL. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2004-05 I N I.T.A. NO. 397/HYD/2008 WAS DISPOSED OF BY AN ORDER DATED 19.8 .2009. WHEN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL WAS RECEIVED AT THE OFFI CE OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THE SAME WAS FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THEN THE ASSESSEE ENQUIRED ABOUT THE ORDER FOR A.Y. 2005-06. AT THAT TIME THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REALISED THAT HE HAS COMMITTED A MISTAKE IN NOT FILING THE APPEAL FOR A. Y. 2005-06. THEREFORE ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THE MISTAKE IN NOT FILING THE APPEAL IS ON HIM AND NOT ON THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT TO THAT EFFECT. THEREFORE THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL MAY BE CONDONED. TH E LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT FOR A.Y. 2004- 05 AN IDENTICAL ISSUES AROSE FOR CONSIDERATION ON MERIT AND THIS TR IBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE DECIDED THE ISSUE S IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUES IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE COVERED O N MERIT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON THE CONTRARY SHRI K.E. SUNIL BABU THE LEARNE D DR SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY OF MORE THAN ONE YEAR WAS NOT PROPER LY EXPLAINED. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED DR IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY P ROPER EXPLANATION THE DELAY CANNOT BE CONDONED. HOWEVER THE LEARNED DR FAIRLY I.T.A. NO. 1132/HYD/200 9 M/S. SEMANTIC SPACE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. ============================== 3 SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUES ON MERIT ARE COVERED IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL FOR A.Y. 200 4-05. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. TH E CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) F OR A.Y. 2005-06 WAS HANDED OVER TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE ALONG WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR A.Y. 2004-05. THE APPEAL W AS FILED FOR A.Y. 2004-05 BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT( A) FOR A.Y. 2005- 06 WAS LOST SIGHT AND MISPLACED IN THE PROCESS OF S HIFTING OF HIS OFFICE. THIS FACTUAL ASPECT WAS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE . THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS VIGILANT ENOUGH IN PROSECUTING THE APP EAL. HOWEVER THE MISTAKE APPEARS TO BE ON THE PART OF THE LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE FOR THE MISTAKE OF LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN OUR OPINION THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PE NALISED. IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE FIND THERE WAS A SUFFIC IENT CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITH IN THE TIME. ACCORDINGLY THE DELAY OF ONE YEAR 5 MONTHS AND 22 D AYS IS CONDONED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ADMITTED. 5. NOW COMING TO THE MERIT OF THE APPEAL. THE FIRS T GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO EXCLUSION OF RS.72 233 BEI NG THE RECOVERIES FROM THE EMPLOYEES FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING EXE MPTION U/S. 10A OF THE ACT. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH TH E ORDER OF THE I.T.A. NO. 1132/HYD/200 9 M/S. SEMANTIC SPACE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. ============================== 4 TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2004-05 IN I.T.A. NO. 397/HYD/2008 DATED 19.8.2009. ADMITTEDLY THE ASSES SEE RECOVERED SALARY EQUIVALENT TO THE NOTICE PERIOD IN TERMS OF THE EMPLOYMENT. AS OBSERVED BY THIS TRIBUNAL FOR A.Y. 2004-05 THE REC OVERIES MADE FROM THE EMPLOYEES REPRESENT THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ON IDENTICAL SITUATION THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE AS SESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 10A OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE REC OVERIES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. BOTH THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E AND THE LEARNED DR FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAV OUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT BY THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL FOR A.Y. 200 4-05. BY FOLLOWING THIS ORDER IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2004-05 WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION FOR THE RECOVERI ES MADE FROM EMPLOYEES FOR THE NOTICE PERIOD. ACCORDINGLY WE S ET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TO RECOMPUTED THE EXEMPTION U/S. 10A OF THE ACT. 6. THE NEXT ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS EXCLU SION OF OTHER INCOME OF RS.27 32 059 FROM THE TOTAL TURNOVER WHIL E COMPUTING EXEMPTION U/S. 10A OF THE ACT. THIS ISSUE WAS ALSO DECIDED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2004-05. THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE OTHER INCOME DO NOT HAVE ANY ELEMENT OF TU RNOVER. THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL TURNOVER. BY FO LLOWING THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2004-05 W E HOLD THAT THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.27 32 059 HAS NO ELEMENT OF TURNOVER. THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE INCLU DED IN THE TOTAL I.T.A. NO. 1132/HYD/200 9 M/S. SEMANTIC SPACE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. ============================== 5 TURNOVER. ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHO RITY IS SET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO EXCLUDE THE OT HER INCOME OF RS.27 32 059 FROM THE TOTAL TURNOVER AND RECOMPUTE THE EXEMPTION U/S. 10A OF THE ACT. 7. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29TH DECEMBER 2010. SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (N.R.S. GANESAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD DATED 29TH DECEMBER 2010 TPRAO COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. SEMANTIC SPACE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. PLOT NO. 226 ROAD NO. 17 JUBILEE HILLS CHECK POST HYDERABAD. 2. THE ACIT CIRCLE 3(1) HYDERABAD. 3. THE CIT(A)-IV HYDERABAD. 4 THE CIT-III HYDERABAD 5. THE DR B BENCH ITAT HYDERABAD