Ramesh Reddy Modukuru, Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(3), Hyderabad

ITA 1366/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6307 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 30-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y.V.S.T. SAI
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Condonation of delay
• Section: 147; 143(3); 54F

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A - SMC, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) ITA NO.1366/HYD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2016 - 17 RAMESH REDDY MODUKURU, HYDERABAD. PAN: ACVPM 9403 G VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 13(3), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SMT. S. SANDHYA REVENUE BY: SHRI Y.V.S.T. SAI, CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING: 07/09/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 07 /09/2020 ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 4, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO.4/10292/18 - 19/ITO, W - 13(3)/CIT(A) - 4/HYD/19 - 20, DATED 13/06/2019 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 AND U/S. 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2010 - 11. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL: - 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DECIDING THE APPEAL ON 13/06/2019 EX - PARTE WITHOUT PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT WHEN THE CASE WAS POSTED ON 11/06/2019, THE APPELLANT FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT AND THE OFFICE OF THE CIT(A) 2 RECEIVED THE SAME AND THE APPEAL WAS DECIDED ON 13/06/2019 WITHOUT POSITNG THE CASE FURTHER. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERITS AND EACH GROUND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DECIDED. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE LAND SOLD IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND BEYOND THE NOTIFIED AREA AN D THAT THEREFORE, NO CAPITAL GAIN AROSE ON SALE OF THE SAID LAND. 5. AS AN ALTERNATE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DIRECTED THAT THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PURCHASED WAS FOR RS. 8,74,483/ - AND THAT APPROPRIATE RELIEF IS ALLOWABLE TO THE APPELLANT U/S. 54F OF TH E ACT. 6. ANY OTHER GROUND OR GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE ME THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 4 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN THIS REGARD, LD. AR BROUGHT MY ATTENTION TOWARDS T HE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY WHEREIN THE REASON FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT WAS EXPLAINED. FOR REFERENCE, THE RELEVANT PORTIONS FROM THE AFFIDAVIT IS EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW: - 1. . THE PE TITIONER IS STATIONED AT AVANIGADDA, KRISHNA DISTRICT AND WHEREAS THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND THE ADVOCATE ARE AT HYDERABAD ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH THE APPEAL PAPERS SENT BY POST AND RECEIVED BACK THROUGH COURIER SERVICE RESULTED IN DELAY. THE PETITIONER SUB MITS THAT THE DELAY IS FOR THE REASONS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PETITIONER AND IS NOT INTENTIONAL. THE PETITIONER, THEREFORE, PRAYS THE HONBLE ITAT TO KINDLY CONDONE THE DELAY AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS IN THE MATTER. 4. AFTER HEARING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND ON PERUSAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, I FIND MERIT IN THEIR SUBMISSIONS. 3 THEREFORE , IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I HEREBY CONDONE THE DELAY OF 4 DAYS IN THE FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND PROCEED TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 5. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE ME THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER WITHOUT PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD CIT (A) IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD . LD. DR, ON THE OTH ER HAND, VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND ARGUED THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER, ON THE GIVEN DATE OF HEARING, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ITS REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). IT WAS FU RTHER SUBMITTED THAT 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. 6 . I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBM ISSIONS 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. CIT (A) HAD POSTED THE CASE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE T HE CIT(A) ON THE DATE OF HEARING. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT (A) WAS LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL BASED ON THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THIS SITUATION, I DO NOT FIND MUCH 4 STRENGTH IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR. FURTHER, BEFORE ME THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FIRST TIME WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED EITHER BEFORE THE LD. AO OR BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE COULD NOT BE PRODUCE D BEFOR E THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO OBTAIN THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FROM THE DESIGNATED AUTHORITIES BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES. FURTHER, LD. AR REQUESTED THAT SINCE THE ADDITIONA L EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WILL GO TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER THE SAME MAY BE ADMITTED. ON PERUSAL OF THE NATURE OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BEFORE ME, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE PRODUCED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THEM WHICH THE ASSESSEE AND HIS COUNSEL HAS GROSSLY FAILED. HENCE SUBMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT BE APPRECIATED WHIC H DELAYS THE PROCEEDINGS IN DISPOSING OFF THE CASE. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE PRAYER OF THE LD. AR, AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I HEREBY ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. AO IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL EV IDENCE AND DECIDE THE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERITS AFTER PROVIDING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. AT THE SAME BREATH, I ALSO HEREBY CAUTION THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTLY CO - OPERATE BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THE IR PROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH THE LD. REVENUE 5 AUTHORITIES SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER S IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON THE RECORD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 7 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07 TH SEPTEMBER, 2020. SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 07 TH SEPTEMBER, 2020. OKK COPY TO: - 1) RAMESH REDDY MODUKURU, FLAT NO.404, 4 TH FLOOR, SIRI ENCLAVE APARTMENTS, SIRI NAGAR, L.B. NAGAR, HYDERABAD. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 13(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD - 500 029. 3) THE CIT(A) - 4, HYDERABAD 4) THE PR. CIT - 4, HYDERABAD 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE