Kotte Vidyasagar, Hyderabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward6(5), Hyderabad

ITA 122/Hyd/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6975 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2021
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P SURESH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice; Condonation of delay
• Section: 69; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH SMC, HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 122/HYD/2021 A.Y. 2017 - 18 KOTTE VIDYASAGAR, HYDERABAD. PAN: ASVPR 4055 P VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(5), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI M.V. PRASAD REVENUE BY: SHRI P. SURESH, DR DATE OF HEARING: 30/03/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08 /04/2021 ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 6, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO. 10248/2019 - 20/C/CIT(A) - 6, DATED 25/08/2020 PASSED U/S. 144 R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 25/08/2020. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FIVE GROUNDS IN HI S APPEAL AND THEY ARE EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: - 1. THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW WHILE PASSING THE ORDER. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) WOULD HAVE ACCORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT OF BEING HEARD AND ALSO TO FILE THE PETITION FOR CONDONA TION OF DELAY BEFORE DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN VIEW OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) WOULD HAVE ISSUED ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO PRESENT HIS ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) SINCE ONLY ONE DEFICIENCY LETTER DATED 12/08/2020 W AS ISSUED AND LATER DISPOSED OFF THE APPEAL. 2 4. THE LD. CIT(A) WOULD HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE MERELY REJECTING THE APPEAL BASING ON THE PROCEDURAL ISSUES. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD TO, AMEND OR MODIFY THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPE AL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, IF IT IS CONSIDERED NECESSARY. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 453 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE HA S SUBMI TTED A PETITION SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY WHEREIN THE REASONS FOR FILING THE APPEAL BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT WAS EXPLAINED. FOR REFERENCE, THE RELEVANT PORTION FROM THE AFFIDAVIT IS EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW: - ..THE REASONS FOR SUCH DELAY WAS THAT THE APPELLANT IS UNEDUCATED. EVEN THOUGH HE IS RUNNING BUSINESS IN REAL ESTATE, DO NOT KNOW THE PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. DUE TO LACK OF KNOWLEDGE IN UNDERSTANDING ENGLISH, HE DID NOT KNOW THE RESULT OF THE CIT(A) ORDER AND THEREFORE DID NOT CONSULT ANY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT OR AUDITOR FOR ANY ADVICE AND FURTHER DUE COURSE OF ACTION. HE THOUGHT THAT HIS APPEAL FILED BY THE AUDITOR HAS COME TO FINALITY AND HE WON THE CASE AND EXPECTING RELIEF FROM TAX BURDEN. EVEN WHILE FILIN G THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) ALSO THERE WAS A DELAY OF 41 DAYS AND THIS WAS HAPPENED DUE TO LACK OF KNOWLEDGE AND APPELLANT CONSULTED THE AUDITOR VERY LATELY AND UPLOADED THE APPEAL PETITION ON HIS OWN AND THEREFORE, DID NOT FILE ANY PETITION FOR CONDONA TION OF DELAY. IN THE PRESENT SITUATION ALSO I.E., IN PREFERRING FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE ITAT SAME MISTAKE IS COMMITTED BY THE APPELLANT SINCE HE HAS NOT APPROACHED THE AUDITOR OR TAX CONSULTANT IN TIME AND AFTER REALIZING THAT HIS APPEAL WAS DISMIS SED BY THE CIT(A) CAME TO THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT ONLY RECENTLY AND HENCE THERE WAS DELAY 4. ON PERUSAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, I FIND THAT THE DELAY OF 453 DAYS IN FILING OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL HAS OCCURRED DUE TO HIS IGNORANCE WHICH IS NOT APPRECIABLE. HOWEVER , CONSIDERING THE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE, AND THE POOR FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE ASSESSEE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I HEREBY CONDONE THE DELAY OF 453 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 3 5 . AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE ME THAT TH E LD. AO HAD PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER U/S. 144 OF THE ACT WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 3,00,000 / - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S. 69 OF THE ACT AND DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 9, 62 , 750 / - . IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS DELAY OF 41 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). O N APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) DID NOT CON DONE THE DELAY AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMINE , WITHOUT PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE L D. CIT(A) ENHANCED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE PROVIDED WITH ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO PURSUE HIS CASE BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND OBJECTED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR A ND ARGUED THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, ON THE GIVEN DATES OF HEARING, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. AO AND EVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO CONDONE THE DELAY 41 DAYS . UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO PASS ORDERS ON MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HENCE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. REVENUE AUTHOR ITIES DO NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 4 6 . I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. ON EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR. THE LD. AO HAD POSTED THE CASE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. AO ON THE GIVEN DATES OF HEARING AND EVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT IMPROVE HIS CASE MOREOVER, THERE IS DELAY OF 41 DAY S IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES , THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES WERE LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO PASS ORDERS BASED O N THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THIS SITUATION, I DO NOT FIND MUCH STRENGTH IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE PRAYER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND THE NATURE OF ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. AO FOR DE - NOVO CONSIDERATION THEREBY PROVIDING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS IN DICATED HEREINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 08 TH APRIL, 2021. SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 5 HYDERABAD, DATED: 08 TH APRIL, 2021. OKK COPY TO: - 1) M/S. KOTTE VIDYASAGAR, VILLA NO.3, PHASE:1, VASUDEVA BLOOMFIELD ELATION TOWERS, KHAJAGUDA, GOLCONDA, HYDERABAD 500 008, TELANGANA, INDIA. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(5), IT TOWERS, AC GUARDS, MASAB TANK, HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT (A) - 6, HYDERABAD. 4) THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE