Itta/39/2021 Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Taxes v. M/S Safeway Infra

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH [NOVET\iIBER]TWO THOUSAND AND PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE [P.SAM KOSHY]ANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE [N.TUKARAMJI] LT.T.A.No.39 oI 2021 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal [Under ][Section ][260-A of ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][Act, ][1961]arising out of the order of [the ][lncome Tax Appellate ][Tribunal, ][Hyderabad Bench 'A',]Hyderabad, in ITA [No.31 ]7/HYDI2O2O, [for ][assessmenlYeat ][2014-15 ][dated ][26-1 ][1-]2020 preferred against the Order [of the ][Commissioner ][of ][lncome ][Tax ][(Appeals)-2']Rajkamal Complex, Lakshmipuram, [GUNTUR. ] [No.10049/GNT/C|T(A)-2i2016-]I 7, dated:29-03-2019, [preferred against the ][order ][of ][the Assistant ][commissioner of]I ncome Tax, Circle-B( [1 ]), Hyderabad. [PAN. ][No. dated ][2B-1 ][2-201 ][6.] Between: The Assistant Commissioner of lncome [Taxes, Circle 8(1), Hyderabad'] ...AppellanUrbspondent[[lndukuri, Hyderabad.]]...Respondents/Appellant AND M/s Safeway lnfra, rep., by its Venkata Satyanarayana Raju [[lndukuri, Hyderabad.]]...Respondents/AppellantCounsel for the Appellant: Mr. A. RADHA KRISHNACounsel for the Respondent: SRI P. ROHITThe Court made the following: ORDER...Respondents/AppellantCounsel for the Appellant: Mr. A. RADHA KRISHNACounsel for the Respondent: SRI P. ROHITThe Court made the following: ORDER TH-O HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE P.SAM KOSHY AND THII HON'BLB SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI IT.T.A. No.39 of 202t ORDER:(per ]{on'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHy) The pres:nt is an appeal filed assailing the order dated26.ll.2020passed by the hcome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad_,A' Bench (forshort ITAT) in t.T.A.No.3 1 7 lIirl1Dt2O2O. 2. Heard Mr.A. Radha Krishna, leamed Standing Counsel appearingfor the appellant - Department. perused the materiar available on record. 3. It would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the operativepart of the orde;.passed by the ITAT which reads as follorvs: "Having regard to rival contentions and materialplacecl on record, we find that the assessee has neverappea'ed before the authorities below. However, due tothe reirsons given in the Application for condonation ofdelay, we are satisfied that there was a reasonable causefor thr' assessee in filing the appeals before the Tribunalwith zL delay. However, as there was also a delay infiling the appeals before the CIT(A) and since theassess)e has not appeared before the AO also, we areinclinr:d to condone the delay in filing of the appealsbefore the Tribunal and also before the CIT(A), subjecrto the condition t!4 the assesee in each of the appeal, shall pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to prime Minsiter,s CareFund within a period of 01 month from the date ofreceipt of this order. On filing proof of such paymentby the assesses, the AO shall reconsider the issues onby the assesses, the AO shall reconsider the issues onmerits in accordance with law. Needless to mention thatthe assessee shall be given a fair opportunity of hearingthe assessee shall be given a fair opportunity of hearingand the assessee shall also cooperate with the AO forearly completion of the assessment,,.early completion of the assessment,,. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case under whichthe ITAT has allowed the appeal of the assessee and have remitted backto the assessing officer to reconsider the issue on merits, we do not finclany substantial question of law made out calling for an interference to theimpugned order. Thus, the instant appeal fails and is accordinglyrejected. 5As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. SD/. B.S. CHIRANJEEVIJorNrR$2RAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case under whichthe ITAT has allowed the appeal of the assessee and have remitted backto the assessing officer to reconsider the issue on merits, we do not finclany substantial question of law made out calling for an interference to theimpugned order. Thus, the instant appeal fails and is accordinglyrejected. 5As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. SD/. B.S. CHIRANJEEVIJorNrR$2RAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,1The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ['A ][' ][Hyderabad]2The Commissioner of lncome Tax [(Appeals)-2, ]Rajkamal [Complex,]Lakshmipuram, GUNTUR.1The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ['A ][' ][Hyderabad]2The Commissioner of lncome Tax [(Appeals)-2, ]Rajkamal [Complex,]Lakshmipuram, GUNTUR.JThe Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle-8(1), [Hyderabad.]4One CC to Mr. A. RADHA KRISHNA, Advocate 4One CC to Mr. A. RADHA KRISHNA, Advocate 5One CC to SRI P. ROHIT, Advocate 6Two CD CoPies6Two CD CoPies r. HIGH COURT DATED:16i1112023 ORDER ITTA.No.39' ol 2021 THE APPE,qLIS REJECTED\e 1Et "i .,*tAF.r\*C).\'gJoF.,.tF/.- to,:*:ll_r at