Satyanarayana Naroju, Warangal V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Warangal

ITA 175/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4915 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-02-2020
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NILANJAN DEY
• Assessee Lawyers: P VINOD
• Section: 13; 144

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A - SMC , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 175 /HYD/20 18 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 12 - 13 SATYANARAYANA NAROJU, WARANG A L - 516001. PAN: AANPN 5195 J VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4, WARANGAL. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI P. VINOD REVENUE BY: SRI NILANJAN DEY, DR DATE OF HEARING: 03/02/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20 /02/2020 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 3, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO.0111/ITO - W - 4/2WGL/CIT(A) - 3/15 - 16, DATED 08/08/2017 PASSED U/S. 144 R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2012 - 13. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN HIS AP PEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS AND UNSUSTAINABLE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT ACCORDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GROUND NO.2 ABOVE: 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED BY UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,04,500/ - ON 2 ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATE OF PROFIT FROM SERVICE CHARGES FOR MAKING ORNAMENTS @ 70%. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMENT OF SURPLUS FROM THE SALE OF PLOTS AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS AS AGAINST LT CG RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT . 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED BY UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMENT OF SURPLUS FROM SALE OF PLOTS AT RS. 15,80,880/ - AS AGAINST RS. 8,57,426/ - RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT . 6. ANY OT HER GROUND OR GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 76 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT STATING THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. FOR REFERENCE, THE RELEVANT PORTION FROM THE AFFIDAVIT IS EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW: 3.I HAVE NOT BEEN KEEPING WELL FOR OVER THREE YEARS DUE TO ILL HEALTH. IN FACT, I HAVE BEEN FACING SERIOUS HEALTH PR OBLEMS, FOR THE POST ONE YEAR AND HAD TO UNDERGO FREQUENT MEDICAL CHECKUPS DURING SUCH PERIOD. EVEN PRIOR THERETO, I WAS HAVING CARDIAC PROBLEMS FOR WHICH I HAD UNDERGONE ANGIOPLASTY AND OTHER TREATMENTS. SUBSEQUENTLY, I ALSO DEVELOPED RESPIRATORY AND UR OLOGICAL PROBLEMS FOR WHICH I HAD TO BE HOSPITALISED IN HYDERABAD FOR A FEW DAYS. THEREFORE I WEAS NOT IN A POSITION TO CONCENTRATE ON MY REGULAR BUSINESS AND OTHER RELATED MATTERS AND IN MY ABSENCE, MY WIFE AND CHILDREN, THOUGH NOT VERY WELL VERSED, WERE LOOKING AFTER THE ROUTINE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. IN FACT, THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT MY WELL BEING AND, AS SUCH, THEY WERE NOT INCLINED TO DISTURB ME IN THAT STATE OF HEALTH. AS I HAD PARTIALLY RECOVERED IN THE SECOND WEEK OF JANUARY 2018, MY SO APPRAISED ME OF THE FACTS RELATING TO THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL BY CIT(A). IMMEDIATELY, I TOOK STEPS TO ENSURE THAT THE APPEAL COULD BE FILED WITHOUT ANY FURTHER DELAY. THUS, THE APPEAL WAS FILED ON 25/01/2018. 3.1 ON PERUSAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IT APPEARS THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS DUE TO THE ILL HEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE . IN THIS SITUATION , I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE DELAY OF 76 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED T O BE CONDONED. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE 3 INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I HEREBY CONDONE THE DELAY OF 76 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND PROCEED TO HEAR THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE LD. CIT (A) AS WELL AS THE LD. AO H AVE PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER S WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HIS AR COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES DUE TO UNAVOIDABLE AND COMPELLING CIRC UMSTANCES. THE LD. AR FURTHER PLEADED BEFORE US THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PURSUE THE APPEAL PROPERLY BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THE EARLIER OCCASIONS ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE PROVIDED BY REMITTING BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD AO FOR FRESH HEARING. LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND ARGUED BY STATING THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, ON THE GIVEN DATES OF HEARING, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HI S REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AND THE LD. AO. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO PASS EX - PARTE ORDERS ON MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HENCE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE O RDERS PASSED BY THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES DO NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. ON EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I FIND MERI T IN 4 THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR. T HE LD. CIT (A) AND THE LD. AO HAD POSTED THE CASE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS . HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THE GIVEN DATES OF HEARING. THEREFORE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES WERE LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO PASS EX - PARTE ORDERS. IN THIS SITUATION, I DO NOT FIND MUCH STRENGTH IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE PRAYER OF THE LD. AR AND THE ISS UES 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. AT THE SAME BREATH, I ALSO HEREBY CAUTION THE ASSE SSEE TO PROMPTLY CO - OPERATE BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THEIR PROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON THE RECORD. IT IS ORDE RED ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH FEBRUARY, 2020 . SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 20 TH FEBRUARY, 2020 OKK 5 COPY TO: - 1) SATYANARAYANA N AROJU, 2 - 3 - 116, STATION ROAD, MAHABUBABAD, WARANGAL - 516001. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, STATION ROAD, WARANGAL. 3) THE CIT(A) - 3, HYDERABAD. 4) THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE