Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
Gennex Laboratories Ltd., Hyd, ... vs Acit, Cirlce-2(3), Hyd, Hyderabad on 24 March, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH "A", HYDERABAD
BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA Nos. 191 & 192/Hyd/2016
Assessment Years: 2001-02 & 2002-03
Gennex Laboratories Ltd., Vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income-
Hyderabad. tax, Circle - 2(3), Hyderabad.
PAN - AABCP 3078M
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri Laxminiwas Sharma
Revenue by : Smt. Suman Malik
Date of hearing : 06-03-2017
Date of pronouncement : 24-03-2017
ORDER
PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.:
These two appeals of the assessee are directed against separate orders of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax(A) - 2,(in short CIT(A), Hyderabad, both dated, 30/11/2015 for AY 2001-02 and 2002-03. As identical issue is involved in these appeals, they were clubbed and heard together and, therefore, for the sake of convenience, a common order is passed.
2. The assessee filed these two appeals with a delay of 3 days. A condonation petition was filed in this connection along with an affidavit stating that the delay was not intentional and the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause. As the assessee is prevented by sufficient reason, we condone the said delay and admit the appeals for adjudication.
2ITA Nos. 191 & 192/H/16 Gennex Laboratories Ltd.
2. Briefly the facts as emanated from AY 2001-02 are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of bulk drugs. Assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act for the Asst.Year 2001-02 was completed by the AO on 19-03-2004 assessing income at Rs.73,71,160/-. Subsequently, assessment was reopened u/s.147 and assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 was completed on 22-12-2006 assessing income at Rs.69,78,445/- by disallowing depreciation of Rs.15,75,000/-. The assessee preferred an appeal before the then CIT(A)-III, Hyderabad. The said appeal was dismissed by the then CIT(A)-III, Hyderabad vide order No. ITA No. 155/R-16/AC2(3)/CITV/2005-06. The assessee preferred further appeal before Hon'ble ITAT. The Hon'ble ITAT vide its common order dated 30-10-2009 for the Asst.Years: 2001-2002 and 2002-03 had set aside the assessments with a direction that the AO should admit the evidence filed by the assessee before CIT(A) and decide the issue de novo. In obedience to the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, the AO completed the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s 254 of the Act on 30.12.2010 thereby disallowing depreciation of Rs.15,75,000/- claimed by the assessee.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A).
4. The CIT(A) observed that in spite of sufficient opportunities granted, neither the assessee nor its authorized representative attended on the dates of hearing. He further observed that the assessee has not even furnished any details or material with regard to the issues raised in appeal. He, therefore, following various cases including the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITR 320 (Del.) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
3ITA Nos. 191 & 192/H/16 Gennex Laboratories Ltd.
4.1 Even on merits also, he observed that in spite of sufficient opportunities provided to the assessee, neither the assessee nor its AR furnished any evidence rebutting the conclusions drawn by the AO. Therefore, the CIT(A) held that the AO is justified in disallowing the depreciation claim of Rs. 15,75,000/- on computers. He accordingly confirmed the disallowance made by the AO.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal, which are common in both the appeals:
"1. The learned CIT(A) erred in facts and law while passing the order exparte.
2. The learned CIT (A) erred in coming to the 'conclusion that assessee is not interested in Prosecuting the appeal. If fact the appeal paper were handed over to advocate who did not appear on the date of posting appeal. Assessee noticed the same only on receipt of appeal order.
3. The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming that the Parties Global Telenet Ltd and AMI Computers (I) Ltd do not exist inspite the assessee filed their certificate of Incorporation, Sales tax Regn. No. etc.,.
4. The CIT(A) erred in not considering that Assessing Officer has not given any opportunity to cross examine the persons from whom the statements were recorded. Hence it amount to denial of natural justice.
5. Any other ground that will be raised or filed on or before the appeal hearing."
6. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material facts on record. It is relevant to note that this is second round of appeal proceedings. The coordinate bench of this Tribunal set aside the case to the file of the AO to redo the assessment based on the materials/additional evidence filed before the CIT(A), which according to the assessee, CIT(A) has failed to consider the same while 4 ITA Nos. 191 & 192/H/16 Gennex Laboratories Ltd.
adjudication. Based on the above direction, AO has issued several notices and assessee chose not to appear (reasons best known to assessee) before the AO even though several opportunities were extended to assessee. AO completed the assessment based on the information available on record and further enquiries conducted with the help of DDIT, Kolkatta. These enquiries have shown that these were bogus companies. The assessee has not represented or clarified the details before the AO. Aggrieved with the order of the AO, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) and again chose not to proceed with appeal proceedings by neglecting the hearing notice. Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution. Aggrieved with the order of CIT(A), assessee has raised similar grounds before us, which were raised at the time of initial appeal before the coordinate bench. We find from the record that assessee has not utilized the opportunity extended to it and another opportunity cannot be extended to the assessee as the assessee took the appeal proceedings in a very light manner by not complying with the opportunities provided by the revenue authorities. Accordingly, we dismiss both the appeals of the assessee.
7. In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on 24 th March, 2017.
(P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Hyderabad, Dated:24 th March, 2017.
kv
5
ITA Nos. 191 & 192/H/16
Gennex Laboratories Ltd.
Copy to:-
1) M/s Gennex Laboratories Ltd., Akash Ganga, 4 th Floor, Plot No. 144 , Sri Nagar Colony, Hyderabad.
2) ACIT, Circle - 2(3), Hyd.
3) CIT(A) - 2, Hyderabad 4 Pr. CIT - 2, Hyderabad
5) The Departmental Representative, I.T.A.T., Hyderabad.
6) Guard File