Maxima Estates Pvt.Ltd.,, Hyderabad v. ACIT, Cir-16(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1411/HYD/2011 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 141122514 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AABCM3919Q
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 1411/HYD/2011
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
Appellant Maxima Estates Pvt.Ltd.,, Hyderabad
Respondent ACIT, Cir-16(2), Hyderabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 16-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 16-11-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 05-10-2016
Next Hearing Date 05-10-2016
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 02-08-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI A.M AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN J.M ITA NO.1411/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 M/S.MAXIMA ESTATES PVT. LTD. HYDERABAD. ( PAN AABCM 3919 Q) VS ACIT CIR-16(2) HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. RAMA RAO RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.V. PRASAD REDDY DATE OF HEARING: 16-11-2011. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16 -11-2011. O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-V HYDERABAD DATED 27-5-2011 AND IT PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE GROUND FOR NOT ADMITTIN G THE APPEAL BY THE CIT (A) AS THERE WAS DELAY OF 49 DAYS IN FILI NG THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). ITA NO.1411/HYD/2011- M/S. MAXIMA ESTATES PVT. LTD. HYD. L.L ========================== 2 3. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PETITION BEFORE THE C IT (A) EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY AS FOLLOWS:- THE APPELLANT HEREIN IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASST. CIT CIR-16(2) HYDERABAD COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 14 3(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 30-11-2010. THE SAID ORDER WAS SERVED ON7-12 -2010. THE PERIOD OF 30 DAYS ENDED ON 6-1-2011. THE APPEAL IS BEING FILED BEFORE THE CIT (A) ON 24-2-2011 WITH A DELAY OF 49 DAYS. IN THIS REGARD THE APPELLANT HUMBLY SUBMITS THAT DUE TO SLUMP IN THE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS ALMOST ALL THE EMPLOYEES OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY LEFT THE COM PANY AND IN THE SAME PREMISES THE OFFICE OF ANOTHER COMPANY SNEHA K INETIC POWER PROJECTS LTD. IS ALSO ACCOMMODATED. AS THE PERSON S REPRESENTING THE APPELLANT WERE NOT AVAILABLE ON 7-12-2010 THE SAID ORDER WAS RECEIVED BY ONE SRI K. RAGHAVENDRA NAIDU WHO IS THE EMPLOYEE OF SNEHA KINETIC POWER PROJECTS LTD. HE LEFT THE ORDER UNATTENDED A ND IT HAS NOT COME TO THE NOTICE OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. HOWEVER IN T HE SECOND WEEK OF FEBRUARY 2011 WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER SENT A LE TTER REQUIRING THE APPELLANT TO PAY THE TAX ARREARS THE DIRECTOR OF T HE APPELLANT COMPANY CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE ASSESSMENT MADE AND ON VERIF ICATION THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS TRACED AND IMMEDIATELY THEREAF TER THE APPELLANT HANDED OVER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO ITS AUDITOR FOR PREPARATION OF APPEAL TO BE FILED BEFORE THE CIT (A). THE APPELLA NT HUMBLY SUBMITS THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL IS FOR THE REASONS B EYOND THE CONTROL OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND IS NOT INTENTIONAL. THE APPE LLANT THEREFORE PRAYS THE CIT (A) TO KINDLY CONDONE THE DELAY AND P ASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS IN THE MATTER. ITA NO.1411/HYD/2011- M/S. MAXIMA ESTATES PVT. LTD. HYD. L.L ========================== 3 THE ABOVE REASON ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT F OUND FAVOUR WITH THE CIT (A). HENCE IT IS PRAYED THAT THE DELAY O F 49 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) TO BE CONDONED. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE THERE WAS A DELAY OF 49 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CI T (A) THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL IS FOR THE REASONS BEYOND THE CON TROL OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND IS NOT INTENTIONAL. IN OUR OPINION THE REASONS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE GENUINE AND THEREFORE THE ASSES SEE IS HAVING GOOD AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN FILING THE APPEAL BELATEDLY . WHEN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ARE PITTED AGA INST EACH OTHER THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DESERVES TO BE PREFERR ED FOR THE OTHER SIDE CANNOT CLAIM TO HAVE A VESTED RIGHT IN INJUSTICE BE ING DONE BECAUSE OF A NON DELIBERATE DELAY. IN THE CASE ON HAND WE HAVE TO PREFER SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE RATHER THAN TECHNICALITIES FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE. AS OBSERVED BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST KATIJI AND OTHERS (167 ITR 471) IF THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE F OR CONDONING THE DELAY IS REJECTED IT WOULD AMOUNT TO LEGALIZING INJUSTIC E ON TECHNICAL DEFAULT WHEN WE ARE CAPABLE OF REMOVING INJUSTICE AND TO DO JUSTICE. THEREFORE WE ARE INCLINED TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN THE INSTANT CASE AND DIRECT THE CIT (A) TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ITA NO.1411/HYD/2011- M/S. MAXIMA ESTATES PVT. LTD. HYD. L.L ========================== 4 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE A SSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 -11-20 11 . SD/- SD/- (SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) (CHANDRA POOJARI) JUDICIAL MEMBER. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. DT/- 16 -11-2011. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. D. VENUGOPAL & COMPANY FLAT NO.102 SRI SAI SAMPAD A PLAZA HABSIGUDA HYDERABAD. 2. ACIT CIR - 16(2) HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(A)-V HYDERABAD. 4. CIT AP HYDERABAD. 5. THE D.R. ITAT HYDERABAD. JMR*