Itta/242/2022 Of Gvpr Engineers Limited v. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUSTTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYANANDAND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY f.A. NO.1 0F 2022 IN /AND INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO:242 OF 2022 Between: GVPR Engineers Limited, having its Registered office at 8-2-2931821A, plot No. 739-A, Road No. 37, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad -500033 (earlier at 8-2-2931821A, Plot No.739-A, Road No. 37, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad -500 033. ...... PETITIONER APPELLANT AND The Dy, Commissioner of lncome Tax, Central Circle 5, Bth Floor, Aayakar Bhavan,Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT ITTA NO. 242 0F 2022 Appeal under Section 260 A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 against order ofthe lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad B Bench in l.T.A. No.740lHydl2014 for the Assessment Year 2010-11 dated 29-02-2016 against theorder dated 21-02-2014 in ITA No. CIT ( A) - Vll/ Hyd/ 0174t13-14on the fite ofthe Commissioner of lncome Tax ( Appeals ) Vll , Hyderabad preferred againstthe order of the Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Central Circle - S , 8thFloor, Aayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad, dated 3'l-03-2013 in PAN / GIR No. . lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Application under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in thecircumstances stated in the accompation affidavit filed, the High Court may bepleased to condone the delay of 1546 days in filing the appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: Ms. PRABHAVATHI FOR R.S. ASSOCIATESCounsel for the Respondent: NONE APPEAREDThe Court delivered the following: Judgment \ THE IION'B LE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY I.A.No.1 of 2022ln andI.T.T.A. No.242 of 2022 JUDGMENT: lPer tit [; ]tat'bie thc [Chr., ][.r,slce ][UJ.iat ][BtLrratL)] Heard Ms. Prabhavathi. learned counsel for [the]appellant. 2. I.A.No.1 ol 2022 has bcen liled to condone the [delav]of 1546 days in liling the [related ][appeal.] 3. Bc it stated that thc rclated appeal [has ][been ][filed ][by]the appcllant (assessee) under Section [260A of ][the ][lncomc]Tax Act, 196 1, against the order dated [29.O2.2O16](received on 09.03.2016) passed by the [Income ][Ta-r]Appetlate Tribunal, t-{-yderabad [Bench ][.B", ][Hyderabad]('lribunal)1n I.T.A.No.740/llyd 12014 lor the [assessment]vear 2O l0 I 1. +The delay of 1546 days has been [expiaincd ][in ][thc]follorving manncr "Being aggrieved by the said order o[ the learnedITAT, the petitioner herein had filed an appealITAT, the petitioner herein had filed an appealcha-llenging the sard order in rhe year 2O16 and thcsarne was returned with some objections having ITTASRNo. 148 I of 2016. A copy of the online SR detailsshowed in the High Court website is enclosed hercwith.It is submitted that the pctitioner was under bonafidebelief that the said appeal papers were resubmitted andthe appeal was numbered and pcnding for hearing. Theshowed in the High Court website is enclosed hercwith.It is submitted that the pctitioner was under bonafidebelief that the said appeal papers were resubmitted andthe appeal was numbered and pcnding for hearing. TheDetitioner enquired about the same when a similar orderis passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,is passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Hyderabad "A" Bench in l.T.A.No. t617 lHydl2Ot7 forthe assessment year 2013-14 dated 23-l l-2021 in thepetitioner's own case. Then the petitioner became awareof the fact that thc appeal has been returned withthe assessment year 2013-14 dated 23-l l-2021 in thepetitioner's own case. Then the petitioner became awareof the fact that thc appeal has been returned withcertain objections and the same hacl never beenresubmitted by the counsel. Hence, the delay.',resubmitted by the counsel. Hence, the delay.', 5. Thus, it is seen that the appeal which was filed in theyear 2016 was returned with office objections. It is statedthat the appellant was under the bona fide belief that theappeal papers were resubmitted. Subsequently, whenappellant enquired, it was found that the appeal which wasreturned with objections \ ias not resubmitted bv theco unsel. 6. We are unable to accept such untenable [contentions]made on behalf of the appellant. [Merely ][placing ][the ][blame]on the counsel cannot [justifl' ][the inordinate ][delay ][of ][1546]days. Even the particulars [have ][not ][been ][furnished as ][to]when the appeal was filed, [when ][it ][was ][returned, ][the ][name]of the counsel, 'a'hether [the ][appellant ][had ][thereafter ][met]the counsel etc. On the [basis of such ][bald ][statements, ][we]a-re not inclined to condone [the ][inordinate delay ][of ][1546]days. No sufficient [cause has ][been ][shown'] 7. As a matter of fact, once the [appeal was ][filed ][before]rhis Court which r,r'as returned [by the ][Registry ][with ][oflice]objections and thereafter not [re-filed, ][it ][is ][not ][open ][for ][the]appeilant to lile a lresh appeal. [Therefore' ][even ][the ][related]appeal wouid not be maintainable. [If that ][be ][so, question]of condoning the delay [would not ][arise.] 8. That being the position, [A.No.1 ][ol 2022 ][is]dism i ssed [.] ( \ ()Consequently, the related appeal [is ][also ][dismissed.] SD/.B,S.CHIRANJEEVI SD/.B,S.CHIRANJEEVIJotNr REGrs)trAR IsEcroN &Hcen //TRUE COPY// To 1. The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad [Bench,]HyderabadHyderabad 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax [( ][Appeals ])Vll , [Hyderabad] :. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome [Tax, ][Central Circle ]- [5 ], [8th]Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad.Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad. 4. One CC to M/s. R.S. ASSOCIATES 5. Two CD Copies 6. One Spare Copy '\-\.1)- lI I HIGH COURT DATED:2310812022 JUDGMENT !A.NO.1 0F 2022 lN/And ITTA.No.242 of 2022 DISMISSING THE ITI'A AND I.A. NO,I OF ]022 Q"t'"p gE IA7('.:[\]\). r5 Ntj\J zraa)'4.