Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
Gvr Infra Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 26 October, 2021
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH "A", HYDERABAD
(Through Virtual Hearing)
BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
SRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 1270/Hyd/2018
A.Y. 2013-14
GVR Infra Projects Limited, VS. ACIT,
Hyderabad. Circle-2(2),
PAN: AABCG 8066 C Hyderabad.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No. 1271/Hyd/2018
A.Y. 2014-15
GVR Infra Projects Limited, VS. DCIT,
Hyderabad. Circle-2(2),
PAN: AABCG 8066 C Hyderabad.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by Sri S. Rama Rao
Revenue by Smt. Komali Krishna, CIT-DR
Date of hearing: 25/10/2021
Date of pronouncement: 26/10/2021
ORDER
PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, A.M:
The above two captioned appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Hyderabad in appeal Nos. 10201 & 2 10349/CIT(A)-2/Hyd/2016-17, dated 09th March, 2018 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the A.Ys 2013-14 and 2014-15.
2. The assessee has raised five grounds in its appeal for the A.Y. 2013-14 and they are extracted herein below for reference:
"1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance U/s. 14A of Rs.
42,04,552/- made by the A.O. without considering the explanation submitted by the appellant.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.
86,94,289/- debited to the P & L Account under the head Hedging Premium Net of MTM valuation on forward contracts. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the said amount is allowable as deduction.
4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in capitalising the Hedging premium of Rs. 1,37,44,234/- without holding that the said amount represents the revenue expenses.
5. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing."
3. The assessee has raised seven grounds in its appeal for the A.Y. 2014-15 and they are extracted herein below for reference:
"1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the claim for deduction U/s. 80IA(4) of Rs. 66,93,53,430/- on the ground that the same was not claimed in the original return of income and that such revised claim cannot be made.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that such revised claim can be made before the First Appellate Authority and that the appellant satisfied all the conditions necessary for allowing deduction U/s. 80IA(4) of the Act.
4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have admitted the claim and allowed the same.3
5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance U/s. 14A of Rs.
48,34,111/- made by the Assessing Officer without considering the fact that the provisions of section 14A are not applicable.
6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.
65,62,000/- debited to the P & L Account under the head Hedging Premium Net of MTM Valuation on forwards contracts. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the said amount is allowable as deduction.
7. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing."
4. At the outset, Ld. AR submitted before us that there is a delay of 03 days in filing both the appeals for the A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15 before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee had filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay wherein the reasons for not filing the appeals within the prescribed time limit was explained. For reference, the relevant portion from the aforesaid letter is extracted herein below:
"...........
The petitioner humbly submits that due to continuous absence of the person dealing with the case and the matter pertaining to filing of appeals, the appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal could not be filed in time. However the appeal is being filed on 13/06/2018. In the process there is a delay of 3 days in filing the appeal........."
5. On perusal of the affidavit filed by the assessee, it appears that the delay of 03 days in filing both the appeals for the A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15 was due to non-availability of the person dealing with the case. This kind of lame reason by the Ld.AR is not appreciable. However, keeping in view of the issues involved in the appeal, in the interest of justice, we hereby condone the delay of 03 days in filing both the 4 appeals before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits.
6. At the outset, Ld. AR submitted before us that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order and dismissed the appeals of the assessee for the A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15. It was therefore pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) in order to provide one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Ld. DR, on the other hand, vehemently opposed to the submissions of the Ld. AR and argued that sufficient opportunities had been provided to the assessee however, on the given dates of hearing, neither the assessee nor its Representative appeared before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore the Ld. CIT(A) had no other option but to pass ex-parte order based on the materials available on record. Hence, it was pleaded that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) does not call for any interference.
7. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. On examining the facts of the case, we find merit in the submissions of the Ld. DR. The Ld. CIT (A) had posted the case on several occasions. However, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee before the CIT(A) on the dates of hearing. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) was left with no other option except to adjudicate the appeals ex- parte. In this situation, We do not find much strength in the arguments advanced by the ld. AR. However, considering the prayer of the Ld. AR 5 and the issues involved in the appeals, in the interest of justice, We hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) in order to consider both the appeals for the A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15 afresh on merits by providing one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. At the same breath, We also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co- operate before the Ld. CIT(A) in the proceedings failing which the Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and merits based on the materials on the record. It is ordered accordingly.
8. In the result, two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove.
Pronounced in the open Court on the 26th October, 2021.
Sd/- Sd/-
(S.S. GODARA) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Hyderabad, Dated: 26 th October, 2021.
OKK
Copy to:-
1) GVR Infra Projects Limited, Plot No. 231, Swamy Ayyappa
Society, Madhapur, Hyderabad-500 081.
2) Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Signature
Towers, Kondapur, Hyderabad.
(ii) DCIT, Circle-2(2), Signature Towers, Kondapur, Hyderabad.
3) The CIT(A)-2, Hyderabad.
4) The Pr. CIT-2, Hyderabad.
6
5) The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad
6) Guard File