ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyd, Hyderabad v. Navayuga Engineering Co. Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 1359/HYD/2015 | 2011-2012
Pronouncement Date: 26-10-2016 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 135922514 RSA 2015
Assessee PAN AAACN7396R
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 1359/HYD/2015
Duration Of Justice 10 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyd, Hyderabad
Respondent Navayuga Engineering Co. Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 26-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 26-10-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 14-09-2016
Next Hearing Date 14-09-2016
Assessment Year 2011-2012
Appeal Filed On 09-12-2015
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 1359/HYD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) HYDERABAD. VS. NAVAYUGA ENGG. CO. LTD. HYDERABAD PAN AAACN 7396 R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO. 14/HYD/2016 (IN ITA NOS. 1359/HYD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) NAVAYUGA ENGG. CO. LTD. HYDERABAD PAN AAACN 7396 R VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) HYDERABAD. (CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SMT. SUMAN MALIK ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V. RAGHAVENDRA RAO DATE OF HEARING 14-09-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26-10-2016 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN A.M.: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-11 HYDERABAD DATED 10/08/2015 FOR AY 2011- 12. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED C.O AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF C IT(A). 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE COMPANY ORIGINALLY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) ON 29/09/2011 ADMITTING A TAXABLE INCOME OF RS. 31 48 06 168/-. SUBSEQUENT TO A SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE IT ACT ON 14/12/2012 AND IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE UNDER 2 ITA NO. 1359/H/15 & CO NO.14/HYD/16 NAVAYOUGA ENGG. CO. LTD. SECTION 153A A RETURN OF INCOME DISCLOSING TAXABLE INCOME OF RS.398 48 06 168/- WAS FILED ON 03/01/2014. THIS IN CLUDED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.87 CRORES BEING THE DISCLOSURE MADE IN A STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4). THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT TAX LIABILITY ON THIS ADDITIONAL INCOME REMAINED ALMOST ENTIRELY UNP AID. WHILE THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A DEP ICTED A TAX LIABILITY OF RS.104 77 02 538/- AND SHOWED IT AS HAVING BEEN PAID ENTIRELY THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THERE WAS A SHORTFAL L OF RS.38 03 37 370/- IN PAYMENT OF SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX IN THE RETURN FILED ON 03.01.2014. A PENALTY NOTICE U/S 221(1) WA S ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THIS DEFAULT. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER NOTES THAT THERE WAS NO REPLY WHATSOEVER TO THIS NOTICE OF PEN ALTY AND THEREFORE FOUND IT FIT TO LEVY A PENALTY OF RS. 50 00 000/- I N AN ORDER DATED 13- 05-2014 PASSED U/S 221(1) OF THE IT ACT. 3. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFO RE THE CIT(A). 4. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SU BMISSIONS ON 07.08.2015 WHICH HAD BEEN TAKEN ON RECORD BY THE CIT(A). 5. AS REGARDS THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 221(1) OF THE ACT IT WAS ARGUED THAT SINCE NO AMOUNT WAS PAY ABLE AS PER THE RETURN FILED THERE CANNOT BE ANY FINDING OF DEFAUL T IN PAYMENT OF SELF- ASSESSMENT TAX. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SINCE A DEFECT NOTICE U/S 139(9) WAS ISSUED THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION OF ANY S ELF ASSESSMENT TAX PAYABLE ON A DEFECTIVE RETURN. WITHOUT PREJUDIC E TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS THE MERITS OF THE LEVY WERE ALSO CHALLENGE D. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD A GOOD TAX P AYING RECORD IT SUFFERED ACUTE FINANCIAL STRESS AND THAT THERE WAS NO DELIBERATE DEFIANCE OF LAW. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE SU PREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF STATE OF ORISSA VS. HINDUST AN STEEL WORKS (83 ITR 26). IN THIS REGARD THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AS UNDER: 3 ITA NO. 1359/H/15 & CO NO.14/HYD/16 NAVAYOUGA ENGG. CO. LTD. 'HOWEVER AS IT TRANSPIRED THE CALCULATION OF TAX WAS NOT CORRECTLY MADE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE THOUGH T HE DELIBERATENESS IMPUTED IN THE SHOW CAUSE LETTER IS DISPUTED. THE FACT REMAINS THAT SELF ASSESSMENT TAX WAS NOT PAYAB LE ON THE BASIS OF THE RETURN. IT IS EARNESTLY AND HUMBLY SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN IN SEVERE SHORTAGE OF LIQUID FUND S AND THEREFORE THE PAYMENT AS REQUIRED U/S 140A OF THE I T ACT COULD NOT BE MADE ACCORDING TO THE CORRECTED TAX CALCULAT ION NOTICED AFTER THE SHOW CAUSE LETTER WAS RECEIVED. THE DEFEC TS POINTED OUT U/S 139(9) OF THE IT ACT IN SO FAR AS THE CALCULATI ON OF TAX AND THE PAYMENT OF TAX ARE CONCERNED COULD NOT BE RECTIFIE D BECAUSE OF SEVERE PAUCITY OF FUNDS FOR PAYMENT OF THE CORRECT SELF- ASSESSMENT TAX AND BECAUSE THE RETURNS WITHOUT EVID ENCE OF PAYMENT OF SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX ARE NOT ACCEPTED AT THE INWARD STAGE ITSELF. THE ASSESSEE WAS CAUGHT IN PROVERBIAL CATCH 22 SITUATION. DEFECTS POINTED OUT U/S 139(9) COULD NOT BE RECTIFIED FOR WANT OF FUNDS THUS EXPOSED TO THE RISK OF CHARGE O F AN INVALID RETURN'. 6. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.39 8 48 06 168/- IS UNDISPUTED. IT WAS ALSO THE ADMITTED POSITION TH AT THE TOTAL TAX PAYMENT DEPICTED IN THE RETURN AT RS.104 77 02 538/ - IS UNDER STATED APPARENTLY DUE TO A CALCULATION MISTAKE. IT IS THER EFORE THE ADMITTED POSITION THAT THE DEPICTION OF TAX PAYABLE AS 'NIL' VIDE ROW B 13 IN THE FIRST PAGE OF THE RETURN FOR AY 2011-12 IS INCORREC T. IN FACT EVEN IN THE ARGUMENTS ON MERITS THE DEFAULT IS ADMITTED THOUGH IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE AMOUNT WOULD BE LESS HAVING REGARD TO AN EVENTU AL NET REFUND POSITION IF WE CAN CONSIDER THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSME NT YEARS ALSO. (REF. PARA 7 ON PAGE 3 OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS). IN VIEW OF THIS ADMITTED POSITION OF UNDER CALCULATION IT HAS TO BE HELD THAT THERE HAS BEEN A MASKING OF SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX LIABILITY IN A MANUALLY PREPARED RETURN. GROUND NO.2 ALLEGING THAT PROCEEDI NGS ARE NOT VALID BECAUSE THERE WAS NO TAX LIABILITY IS WRONG ON A PL AIN READING OF SECTION 140A(1) AND THEREFORE REJECTED. 7. VIDE GROUND NO.3 IT WAS ARGUED THAT THERE CAN B E NO SELF- ASSESSMENT TAX PAYABLE WHEN THE RETURN WAS INVALID U/S 139(9) OF THE IT ACT. IF THERE WAS NO SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX PAYABLE THERE CAN BE NO PENALTY ATTACHED TO A DEFAULT IN THIS REGARD. 4 ITA NO. 1359/H/15 & CO NO.14/HYD/16 NAVAYOUGA ENGG. CO. LTD. 8. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT FROM THE ORDER OF ASSES SMENT PASSED ON 29-01-2015 THAT THERE IS A DISCUSSION ON THE DEF ECTIVE NATURE OF THE RETURN. PARA -2 ON PAGE 2 READS THUS: 'ON VERIFICATION OF RETURN IT IS OBSERVED THAT SEL F-ASSESSMENT TAX WAS SHORT PAID TO THE TUNE OF RS.38 03 37 370/-. IN VIEW OF THE SAME A NOTICE U/S 139(9) WAS ISSUED GIVING 15 DAYS TIME AND THE SAME WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON COMPANY ON 24.03 .2014. DESPITE THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE SAID NOTICE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY COULD NOT RECTIFY THE SAID MISTAKE WITHIN T HE TIME ALLOWED. HENCE THE RETURN HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS A DEFECTIVE ONE. SINCE THE RETURN WAS TREATED AS DEFECTIVE A N OTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE IT ACT DATED 13.05.2014 HAS BEEN ISSU ED FOR PRODUCTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ANNUAL REPORT A ND COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 30.05 .2014.' 8.1 THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS MAD E U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A AND NOT U/S 144. THE RECORDS WERE THERE FORE PERUSED. IT IS SEEN THAT BY A LETTER DATED 13.05.2014 THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TREATED THE RETURN AS INVALID AND DECLARED HIS DECISION TO PROCEED WITH THE ASSESSMENT AS IF NO RETURN HAS BEEN FILED. 8.2 THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT AN ORDER OF PENALTY U/ S 221(1) OF THE IT ACT IS A SANCTION AGAINST A DEFAULT IN TAX PAYME NT. THIS DEFAULT CAN BE IN RESPECT OF AN AMOUNT DETERMINED AS PAYABLE IN AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR DEEMED BEFO RE SUCH DETERMINATION IN RESPECT OF AN AMOUNT ADMITTED AS P AYABLE IN A RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT UNPAI D. BY OPERATION OF SECTION 140A(1) THE RESPONSIBILITY OF COMPLETE PAYM ENT OF TAXES ON ADMITTED INCOME BEFORE FILING THE SAME U/S 139(1) I S FASTENED ON THE ASSESSEE. UPON FAILURE TO DO SO SECTION 140A(3) PR OVIDED THAT SUCH AN ASSESSEE BE DEEMED TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT OF TAX LIABILITY IS PENDING. TH IS DEEMING PROVISION EXPOSED THE ASSESSEE TO THE RIGORS OF SECTION 221(1 ) AMONG OTHERS EVEN BEFORE CONCLUSION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. B Y THE PROVISION OF SECTION 140A(3) AN ASSESSEE WHOSE RETURN OF INCO ME REVEALED ANY SHORTFALL IN SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX PAID WOULD BE DEEM ED TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT THE INSTANT SUCH RETURN WAS FIL ED. 5 ITA NO. 1359/H/15 & CO NO.14/HYD/16 NAVAYOUGA ENGG. CO. LTD. 8.3 THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT WITH THE CHANGE IN LA W BROUGHT ABOUT BY FINANCE ACT 2013 W.E.F. 01.06.2013 WHEREBY CLA USE (AA) WAS INSERTED IN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 139(9) ANY SHOR TFALL IN AMOUNT PAYABLE U/S 140A RENDERED THE RETURN DEFECTIVE. IF THE DEFECT WAS NOT CURED WITHIN TIME GRANTED IT HAS TO BE EVENTUALLY H ELD AS INVALID. SECTION 139(9) VESTS THE AO WITH NO DISCRETION IN T HE MATTER. 8.4 THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ADMITTED POSITION IN THE CASE AT HAND IS THAT THERE WAS A SHORTFALL IN PAYMENT OF SE LF-ASSESSMENT TAX. THE TAX FILING MADE ON 03.01.2014 IN THE OFFICE OF THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 HYDERABAD PURPORTING TO BE A RETURN OF IN COME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A WAS THEREFORE LIABLE TO BE CAL LED DEFECTIVE. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS THEREFORE PUT ON NOTICE VIDE T HE DCIT'S LETTER DATED 19.3.2014 FOR MAKING GOOD THE DEFECT. THE DEF ECT WAS NOT CURED. EVENTUALLY BY A LETTER DATED 13.5.2014 THE SAID TAX FILING WAS DECLARED TO BE AN INVALID RETURN. 8.5 THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE NECESSARY CONSEQU ENCE OF THIS IS THAT ALL SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED ON THE PREMISE THAT THERE IS NO RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE. WHEN THERE IS NO RETURN OF INCOME THERE CAN BE NO DEEMED DEFAULT THAT ATTACHES TO A RETURN BY OPERATION OF SECTION 140A(3). THE NECESSA RY CONSEQUENCE OF CHOOSING NOT TO FILE A RETURN OR A DEEMED NON-FI LING OF A RETURN FILED AS IN THE INSTANT CASE IS THAT THE AGGREGAT E TAX LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE IS KEPT OPEN WITH THE ATTENDANT COST OF ST ATUTORY INTEREST PROVIDED IN LAW FOR NON FILING TILL ITS DETERMINAT ION IN AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. THE TAX FILING MADE ON 03.01.2014 THERE FORE DOES NOT PRESENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH ANY CAUSE OF ACT ION SUCH AS THE ONE PRESENTLY UNDER CHALLENGE. IT IS A MERE DOCUMEN T BY WAY OF INFORMATION ON THE RECORD FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PROPOSED EX-PARTE PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAVING HELD THAT THERE WAS NO VALID RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 03.01.2014 THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DEEM THE AS SESSEE TO BE A 6 ITA NO. 1359/H/15 & CO NO.14/HYD/16 NAVAYOUGA ENGG. CO. LTD. DEFAULTER AS ON 03.01.2014. ANY FINDING IN RESPECT OF TAX DEFAULT OR OTHERWISE WILL THEREFORE TO HAVE WAIT UNTIL THE LI ABILITY CRYSTALLIZES BY WAY OF NOTICE OF DEMAND U/S 156. IN THE INSTANT CAS E THIS HAPPENED MUCH LATER ON 29.1.2015. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE IMPUGNED PENALTY IS NOT WELL FOU NDED AND IS THEREFORE CANCELLED. NEEDLESS TO SAY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO CONSIDER INITIATION OF THESE PROCEEDINGS IN THE MERITS OF THE CASE AFTER 29.1.2015. GROUND NO.3 THEREFORE SUCCEED S. IN VIEW OF THE TECHNICAL NATURE OF THIS GROUND IT IS NO LONGER NE CESSARY TO DECIDE THE OTHER GROUNDS CHALLENGING THE LEVY ON MERITS. 8.6 THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IT BECOMES NECESSARY IN TERMS OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 251 TO CONSIDER ONE ASPECT I NTEGRAL TO THE FINDINGS RECORDED IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED PROCEEDING S. THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE CONDUCTED BY DEEMING TH E ASSESSEE TO BE A NON-FILER HAVING REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 139(9). FOR THIS REASON THE LEVY OF PENALTY BEFORE CONCLUSION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS HELD TO BE PRE-MATURE AND WITHOUT J URISDICTION. IN KEEPING WITH THIS POSITION THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CALCULATION OF INTEREST CHARGED U/S 234A & 234 B SO THAT IT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DEEMED NON FILING OF A RETURN I N RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 153A. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS TO ALL IN TENTS AND PURPOSES ONE PASSED UNDER SECTION 144 (AND NOT SEC 143[3]) R .W.S. 153A. THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO ISSUE A CORRIGENDUM IN TH IS REGARD. 9. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FAC TS AND LAW. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 221(1) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO PAY SAT ON THE ADMITTED INCOME. 10. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILE D THE RETURN OF INCOME WITHOUT PAYMENT OF SELF ASSESSMENT TAX U/S 1 40A BUT THE TAX LIABILITY IS ALREADY DETERMINED AND KNOWN TO THE AS SESSEE. THE 7 ITA NO. 1359/H/15 & CO NO.14/HYD/16 NAVAYOUGA ENGG. CO. LTD. ASSESSEE CANNOT HIDE BEHIND THE REASON THAT THE RET URN BECOME DEFECTIVE U/S 139(9) OF THE ACT. SHE VEHEMENTLY ARG UED THAT THE ACTION OF THE AO IS JUSTIFIED IN AWARDING PENALTY U/S 221( 1) OF THE ACT. 11. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED TH E RETURN OF INCOME BUT DUE TO CALCULATION MISTAKE THE TAX WAS SHOWN AS FULLY PAID. HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE SAME WAS BROUGHT T O THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE T O MAKE THE PAYMENT DUE TO SHORTAGE OF FUNDS IN THE BUSINESS. H E FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD ALREADY TREATED THE RETUR N AS DEFECTIVE THAT MEANS IT LEAD TO THE SITUATION THE RETURN OF INCOME ITSELF NOT FILED. WHEN THERE IS NO RETURN U/S 140A WHICH WILL NOT LE AD TO DEFAULT OF NON-PAYMENT U/S 140A(3). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LEVY OF PENALTY IS UNCALLED FOR. 12. CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE COUNSELS AND MATERIAL FACTS PLACED ON RECORD. THE FACTS ARE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 03/01/2014 WHICH WAS LATER CONSIDERED AS DEFECTIVE BY ISSUING A NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT ON 13/05/201 4. AO HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 29/01/2015 BY TREATING THE RETURN OF INCOME AS DEFECTIVE AND PROCEEDED TO DETERMINE THE TAX LIABILITY. WHEN THE AO HIMSELF CONFIRMED THE RETURN OF INCOME AS DEFECTIVE ON 13/05/2014 AND AGAIN PROCEEDED TO LEVY PENALTY U/S 221(1) OF THE ACT IS NOT PROPER. WHEN THE RETURN OF INCOME IS TREATED AS DEFECTIVE THERE IS NO LIABILITY U/S 140A. WHEN THERE IS NO LIABILIT Y U/S 140A THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF SECTION 140A(3). HENCE THE LEVY OF PE NALTY U/S 221(1) OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A ) IS PROPER AND JUSTIFIED. 13. IN THE CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THE FOLLOWING CROSS OBJECTIONS WERE RAISED: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DECIDED THE IS SUE ON MERITS ALSO. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE CANCELLED THE PENALTY ON THE GROUND OF MERITS ALSO. 8 ITA NO. 1359/H/15 & CO NO.14/HYD/16 NAVAYOUGA ENGG. CO. LTD. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN APPLYING TH E EXPLANATION TO SEC 251 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON THE MATTER OF C HARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234A & 234B IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT PART OF THE PROCEEDING BEFORE HIM. 4. THE CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234A & 234B IS NOT APPEALABLE U/S 246A OF THE IT ACT. THEREFORE HIS DIRECTIONS IN TH E APPELLATE ORDER ARE AGAINST LAW. 14. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD WE FIND THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF 38 DAYS IN FILING THIS CO BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CONNECTI ON THE ASSESSEE FILED A PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF THE SAID DELAY WHEREIN IT WAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER: 1. IN THE MATTER OF THE ABOVE APPEAL THE RESPONDEN T- ASSESSEE (ASSESSEE) IS RAISING THE CROSS OBJECTIONS . THE INTIMATION OF THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL WAS RECEIVED ON 13-01- 2016. THEREFORE THE LAST DATE FOR FILING THE CROSS OBJECTIONS WOULD BE 12-02-2016. THERE IS A DELAY OF 38 DAYS IN RAISING THE CROSS OBJECTIONS. 2. THE STAFF IN THE ACCOUNTS SECTION HAS NOT BEEN A WARE OF THE ACTION TO BE TAKEN ON RECEIVING THE FIRST HEARING N OTICE OF THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. THE NOTICE WAS NOT PUT UP TO M E THE MANAGING DIRECTOR (MD) THROUGH THE CONCERNED OFFICE RS OF THE COMPANY EITHER BY INADVERTENCE OR BY IGNORANCE. IN FACT IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE POSTING OF THE APPEAL WAS NOTICED B Y OUR COUNSEL SRI V RAGHAVENDRA RAO WHO USUALLY REPRESENTS THE CA SES OF THE COMPANY IN APPEALS ON THE CAUSE LIST. 3. ON CONSULTING THE COUNSEL SRI V. RAGHAVENDRA RAO WHO REPRESENTED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) THE COMPANY HAS BEEN ADVISED BY THE COUN SEL TO FILE CROSS OBJECTIONS. THE CROSS OBJECTIONS HAVE BEEN AC CORDINGLY PREPARED BY HIM AND SENT TO THE COMPANY FOR SIGNATU RES AND. FILING BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. THE CROSS OBJEC TIONS WERE PUT UP TO ME. HOWEVER I HAVE BEEN MOSTLY ON TRAVEL AND COULD NOT NOTICE THE CROSS OBJECTIONS PUT UP FOR MY SIGNATURE AS IT GOT MIXED UP WITH OTHER PAPERS ON MY OFFICE TABLE. 4. THE DELAY IN FILING THE CROSS OBJECTIONS IS FOR BONA FIDE REASONS AS SUBMITTED ABOVE AND IT IS NOT INTENTIONA L. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE CROSS OBJECTIONS BE ADMITTED AND ADJUDICAT ED UPON. IF THEY ATE NOT ADMITTED THE ASSESSEE WOULD LOSE A VE RY VALUABLE OPPORTUNITY OF PRESENTING ITS CASE BEFORE THE HON'B LE TRIBUNAL FULLY AND EFFECTIVELY. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT CO NDONATION OF DELAY AND ADMISSION OF THE CROSS OBJECTIONS WILL BE IN THE INTERESTS OF THE JUSTICE. 9 ITA NO. 1359/H/15 & CO NO.14/HYD/16 NAVAYOUGA ENGG. CO. LTD. 5. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE CROSS OBJECTIONS BE KINDLY CONDONED AND CROSS OBJECTIONS ADMITTED FOR C ONSIDERATION AND DISPOSAL. 15. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESS EE WE ARE INCLINED TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE CO FOR ADJUDICATION AS THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY BONAFIDE REASONS IN N OT FILING THE CO WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. 16. WITH REGARD GROUND NO. 2 IN CO WE HAVE ALREADY ADJUDICATED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE WHILE DECIDING REV ENUES APPEAL HENCE NEED NO FURTHER ADJUDICATION. 17. WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO. 3 OF CO WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) HAS POWER U/S 251 TO ENHANCE/DELETE ETC. AN D HE HAS EMPOWERED TO DIRECT THE AO TO DO NECESSARY WITHIN T HE FOUR CORNERS OF LAW. IN OUR VIEW THE DIRECTION OF CIT(A) ON THE IS SUE OF LEVYING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A & 234B ARE WITHIN HIS P OWER. THEREFORE THIS GROUND OF OBJECTION IS REJECTED. 18. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED AND CO OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH OCTOBER 2016. SD/- SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) VICE PRESIDENT A CCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD DATED: 26 TH OCTOBER 2016 KV 10 ITA NO. 1359/H/15 & CO NO.14/HYD/16 NAVAYOUGA ENGG. CO. LTD. COPY TO:- 1) ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) 3RD FLOOR POSN ETT BHAVAN TILAK ROAD RAMKOTE HYDERABAD. 2) M/S NAVAYOUGA ENGINEERING CO. LTD. PLOT NO. 379 ROAD NO. 10 JUBILEE HILLS HYD. - 33 3) CIT(A) - 11 HYDERABAD 4 PR. CIT (CENTRAL) HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE I.T.A.T. HYDE RABAD. 6) GUARD FILE