VOBILISETTY SUBBALAKSHMI L/R OF LATE VOBILISETTY VENKATA SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, RAJAHMUNDRY V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 275/VIZ/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9246 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 25-12-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 02-11-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: APARNA VILLURI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Condonation of delay
• Section: 144; 69A

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री द ु व्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी, न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बालाकृ ष्णन, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.275/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Smt.Vobilisetty Subbalakshmi L/R of (Late) Vobilisetty Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy D.No.2-40-14, Alcot Garden Rajahmundry [PAN : ACXPV6079M] Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1) Rajahmundry (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Smt.A.Aruna, AR प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent by : Ms.Aparna Villuri, DR सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date of Hearing : 26.12.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 04.01.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member : Condonation of Delay : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1051849616(1) dated 03.04.2023, arising out of order passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 24.12.2019 for the 2 I.T.A. No.275/Viz/2023, A.Y.2017-18 Vobilisetty Subbalakshmi, L/R V.V.Satayanarayana Murthy, Rajahmundry Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18 with the delay of 154 days. Smt.Vobilisetty Subbalakshmi, wife and Legal Representative of the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay and submitted that the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) was filed on 13.02.2020 and the assessee expired on 25.08.2020. The family members did not have any idea regarding the income tax assessment or the appeal filed and they were not aware of even the login details of the assessee. As such, the family members were not aware of the hearing notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A) and could not comply with the same. For the very same reason, the family members were not aware of even the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) on 03.04.2023. Subsequent to the dismissal of the appeal on 03.04.2023, the family members came to know about the order of the Ld.CIT(A) when the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Rajahmundry sent a letter asking for payment of the demand raised in the assessment. The Ld.AR, therefore, submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee, which is neither intentional nor deliberate. She, therefore, pleaded to condone the delay and to pass appropriate orders in the interest of rendering substantial justice. 2. I have heard the Ld.AR gone through the condonation petition and medical certificate filed by the assessee. It is evident from the records 3 I.T.A. No.275/Viz/2023, A.Y.2017-18 Vobilisetty Subbalakshmi, L/R V.V.Satayanarayana Murthy, Rajahmundry that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was passed on 03.04.2023 and the assessee ought to have filed appeal before the Tribunal on or before 02.06.2023, but the assessee could file appeal only on 03.11.2023 with the delay of 154 days. I find that there is reasonable cause for filing the appeal belatedly. I, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, engaged in purchase and sale of rice and its bye-products on wholesale and retail basis under the name and style of M/s Rama Rice & General Stores, Rajahmundry. It was found from AMIS data in ITBA that the assessee had made cash deposits in the bank to the tune of Rs.20,56,000/- during the demonetization period. Notices were issued by the Assessing Officer(AO) to file certain details, however, the assessee had not responded to several notices issued by the AO. Hence, the AO completed the assessment based on the details available on record and passed order u/s 144 of the Act dated 24.12.2019, determining the income of Rs.1,14,79,126/- by disallowing entire cash deposits of Rs.1,10,45,755/- and clearings of Rs.4,33,371/- during the F.Y.2016-17, relevant to the A.Y.2017-18 and brought to tax u/s 69A of the Act. 4 I.T.A. No.275/Viz/2023, A.Y.2017-18 Vobilisetty Subbalakshmi, L/R V.V.Satayanarayana Murthy, Rajahmundry 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte, holding that in the absence of any reasonable, cogent and valid arguments/contentions advanced by the assessee to counter the AO’s decision as contained in the assessment order. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in dismissing the appeal exparte. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.1,14,79,126 made by the assessing officer u/s 69A of the Act towards alleged unexplained cash deposits and other credits in the bank account of Sri Vobilisetty Venkata Satyanaraya Murthy. 4. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing. 6. The only contention of the Ld.AR is that the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex-parte and sustaining the addition of Rs.1,14,79,126/- made by the AO u/s 69A. The Ld.AR submitted that no physical notices were served on the assessee, but only e-mails were sent, which were not checked by the assessee due to his health condition. The Ld.AR submitted a medical certificate in support of 5 I.T.A. No.275/Viz/2023, A.Y.2017-18 Vobilisetty Subbalakshmi, L/R V.V.Satayanarayana Murthy, Rajahmundry his contention and submitted that the assessee was prevented by a genuine and reasonable cause for not prosecuting the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). She further submitted that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to substantiate her case with material evidences. She, therefore, pleaded to afford one more opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) in the interest of rendering substantial justice to the assessee. 7. Per contra, the Ld.DR relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A), pleaded to uphold the same and dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 8. I have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is undisputed fact that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed ex-parte before the Ld.CIT(A) due to non prosecution of the appeal by the assessee with cogent material evidences to counter the assessment made by the AO. However, in view of the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause for not prosecuting the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.AR pleaded to afford one more opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) or else it would cause irreparable loss to the assessee. Hence, keeping in view the principles of natural justice, I am inclined to 6 I.T.A. No.275/Viz/2023, A.Y.2017-18 Vobilisetty Subbalakshmi, L/R V.V.Satayanarayana Murthy, Rajahmundry remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) and direct the Ld.CIT(A) to afford the assessee, another opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee is also directed to adhere to the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A) and furnish relevant material evidences to substantiate her case. Accordingly, the grounds filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 4 th January,2024. Sd/- Sd/- (एस बालाकृ ष्णन) (द ु व्वूरु आर.एल रेड्डी) (S.BALAKRISHNAN) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 04.01.2024 L.Rama, SPS 7 I.T.A. No.275/Viz/2023, A.Y.2017-18 Vobilisetty Subbalakshmi, L/R V.V.Satayanarayana Murthy, Rajahmundry आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. ननधधाऩरती/ The Assessee– Smt.Vobilisetty Subbalakshmi, L/R of (Late) Vobilisetty Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy, D.No.2-40-14, Alcot Garden Rajahmundry 2. रधजस्व/The Revenue – The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Veerabhadrapuram, Rajahmundry 4. नवभधगीय प्रनतनननध, आयकर अपीलीय अनधकरण, नवशधखधपटणम / DR,ITAT, Visakhapatnam 5..गधर्ा फ़धईल / Guard file आदेशधनुसधर / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam