Bheeshma Goud Survi , Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(2) , Hyderabad

ITA 21/Hyd/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7103 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 16-03-2021
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 06-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A VENKATA RAO
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH SMC, HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 21/HYD/2020 A.Y. 2007 - 08 BHEESHMA GOUD SURVI, HYDERABAD. PAN: ANYPS 9400 M VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11(2), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI SHASHANK DUNDU REVENUE BY: SHRI A. VENKATA RAO, DR DATE OF HEARING: 16/03/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 07 /04/2021 ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 6, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO.10129/2019/B1/CIT(A) - 6, DATED 31/10/2019 PASSED U/S.144 R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y.: 20 07 - 08 . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SIX GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL AND THEY ARE EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: - 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE APPEAL ON THE GROUNDS OF LIMITATION, THOUGH THE DELAY WAS ONLY 57 DAYS AND THAT TOO IS NEITHER WELLFUL NOR WANTON ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT. 2. THE A.O. ERRED IN IGNORING THE REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY VIDE LETTER DATED 05/093/2010 ALONG WITH MEDICAL CERTIFICATE AND THUS THE DI9SMISSAL OF APPEAL FOR NON - APPE ARA NCE IS IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND BAD IN LAW. 2 3. THE A.O. OUGHT TO HAVE NOTICED THAT THE DELAY IN DISPOSAL FOR THE APPEAL IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO ADMINISTRATIVE REASON OF TRANSFERRING CASE TO KURNOO L AND ONLY TWO NOTICES WERE ISSUED FROM CIT(A) HYDERABAD WHICH WERE DULY RESP ONDED BY THE LD. COUNSEL AND ON THE LAST OCCASION THE COUNSEL COULD NOT APPEAR ON ACCOUNT OF ILL HEALTH AND THUS THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON - APPEARANCE. 4. THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ARE ARBITRARY AND BASED ON SURMISES SINCE IT WAS W RONGLY STATED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FILED ANY PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY EVEN AFTER LAPSE OF 10 YEARS THOUGH THE FACT REMAINS THAT AN APPLICATION DT 5/03/2010 WAS ALREADY PLACED ON RECORD. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT W AS NOT FURNISHED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE EITHER BEFORE THE A.O. OR BEFORE THE CIT(A) OVERLOOKING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT FURNISHED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BEFORE ETHE CIT(A) ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DT 10/06/2016 AND THUS THE FINDING THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT VIGILANT IN SEEKING REMEDY, IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. 6. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE HONBLE ITAT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET - ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BY HOLDING THAT THE DELAY I N FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS SUPPORTED BY REASONABLE CAUSE. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS DELAY OF 0 5 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT. IN THIS REGARD, ASSESSEE FIELD A CONDONATION PETITION WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT SINCE THE LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE TIME BARRED ASSESSMENTS, FILING OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ESCAPED HIS ATTENTION AND THEREF ORE THE APPEAL WAS FILED BELATEDLY WITH DELAY OF 05 DAYS . IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL MAY KINDLY BE CONDONED. 4. ON PERUSAL OF THE CONDONATION PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE , I FIND THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL IS NOT 3 ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE FAULT OF THE ASSESSEE . THEREFORE , IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I HEREBY CONDONE THE DELAY OF 05 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 5. AT THE OUTSET, T HE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE ME BY STATING THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. A.O. HAD ALSO PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER U/S. 144 OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AFFORDED PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD A.O. IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD . LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND , VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND ARGUED THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE . H OWEVER, ON THE GIVEN DATES OF HEARING, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. A.O AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT (A). THEREFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO PASS EX - PARTE ORDERS BASED ON THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HENCE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES DO NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. 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. CIT (A) AND THE LD. A.O. HAD 4 POSTED THE CASE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. HOWEVER, NO NE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD.AO AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE DATES OF HEARING. THEREFORE, THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES WERE LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL EX - PARTE. IN THIS SITUATION, I DO NOT F IND MUCH STRENGTH IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL AS WELL AS THE PRAYER OF THE LD. AR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. A.O. IN ORDER TO CONSIDER T HE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERITS BY 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 PROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH THE LD. REVENUE A UTHORITIES SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER 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 HE REINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 07 TH APRIL, 2021. SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 07 TH APRIL, 2021 OKK COPY TO: - 5 1) S. BEESHMA GOUD, D.NO. 3 - 9 - 52/A, SHARADA NAGAR, RAMANTHAPUR, HYDERABAD. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11(2), IT TOWERS, AC GUARDS, HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT (A) - 6, HYDERABAD. 4) THE PR. CIT - 5, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE