Zaffar Nawaz, Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1432/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0504 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 13-07-2021
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 17-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH SMC, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1432/HYD/2019 A.Y. 2016 - 17 ZAFFAR NAWAZ, HYDERABAD. PAN: AAAPZ 8012 D VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 14(2), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI SANJAY MUTHA REVENUE BY: SRI VIJAY V - DR DATE OF HEARING: 13/07/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15 /07/2021 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY , A.M: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 6, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO. 10484/2018 - 19/B2/CIT(A) - 6, DATED 28/06/2019 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2016 - 17. 2. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 02 DAYS IN FILI NG THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS OUT OF STATION DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, HE COULD NOT CONSULT HIS COUNSEL AND THEREFORE THERE WAS A DELAY OF 02 2 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THERE IS NO MALAFIDE INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE . T HEREFORE, IT WAS PRAYED THAT THE DELAY MAY BE CONDONED. AFTER HEARING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR, I FIND SOME MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD.AR AND THEREFORE CONDONE THE DELA Y OF 02 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT AND PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 3 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED TWO GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL AND THEY ARE EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: - ( 1 ) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED AND TO SUMMARILY REJECT THE SAME ON THE BASIS THAT NO EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES WERE PLACED FOR NOT PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE EARLIER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. (2) THE CIT(A) COMPLETELY IGNORED THAT THE EVIDENCE PLACED BEFORE HIM IN SUPPORT OF THE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES RESULTING IN THE EVIDENCE NOT BEING PLACED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4 . AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE ME THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD.AO . IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO FURNISH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TOW ARDS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD.AO DUE TO VARIOUS CONSTRAINTS , THE SAME WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) . IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND ONLY PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. TH EREFORE, THE LD. AR PRAYED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED 3 BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO FOR DE - NOVO CONSIDERATION IN ORDER TO AVOID MISCARRIAGE OF THE JUSTICE OTHERWISE IT WOULD BRING IRREPARABLE LOSS TO THE ASSESSEE. 5 . THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND, V EHEMENTLY ARGUED FOR SUSTAINING THE ORDERS OF THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES SINCE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE PROVIDED PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. 6 . I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. ON PERUSING THE ORDER OF THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND THEREFORE, THEY HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO MAKE SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS LAPSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT APPRECIAB LE. HOWEVER, SINCE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER , IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO FOR DE - NOVO CONSIDERATION WITH DIRECTION TO ADMI T AND EXAMINE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO ANY OTHER EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD.AO AND THEREAFTER PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERIT. I ALSO CAUTION THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTLY CO - OPERATE BEFORE THE LD. REVE NUE AUTHORITIES IN THEIR PROCEEDINGS FAILING 4 WHICH THEY SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 15 TH JULY, 2021. SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 15 TH JULY , 2021. OKK COPY TO: - 1) ZAFFAR NAWAZ, 8 - 2 - 703, VILLA B - 2, AMRUTHA VALLEY, ROAD NO.12, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD - 500 034. 2) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 14(2), IT TOWERS, AC GUARDS, MASAB TANK, HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT (A) - 6, HYDERABAD. 4) THE PR. CIT - 6, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE