Surya Prakash Annavajjula , Secunderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Suryapet

ITA 304/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4916 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-02-2020
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT MITRA
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B - SMC , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 304/HYD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 SURYA PRAKASH ANNAVAJJULA, SECUNDERABAD - 500007. PAN: AFBPA 6308 K VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURYAPET. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI MOHD. AFZAL REVENUE BY: SRI RAJAT MITRA, DR DATE OF HEARING: 05/02/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20 /02/2020 ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 3, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO. 0927/ITO/SYP/CIT(A) - 3/2014 - 15, DATED 17/11/2017 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.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 AGAINST THE LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE AND PROBABILITIES OF CASE. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 24,04,388/ - . 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE CASH D EPOSITS IN THE BANK BY PREPARING A CASH BOOK, WHEREIN, ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WERE EXPLAINED. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 7,83,669/ - WAS RECEIVED BY WAY OF CHEQUE AND THE SOURCE OF RECEIPT WAS EXPLAINED TO THE A.O. 2 5. TH E LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE ENTIRE DEPOSITS OF RS. 15,20,690/ - AE RECEIPTS FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME, PROPERTY INCOME AND RECEIPTS FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRMS, THEREFORE, ERRED IN NOT DELETING THE SAME. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING T HE ORDER OF THE A.O. WHEREIN, THE RECEIPTS FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME WERE NOT ACCEPTED IN SPITE OF FILING PATTA PASS BOOKS AND INCOME CERTIFICATE FROM APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY. 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, AMEND OR MODIFY THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, IF IT IS CONSIDERED NECESSARY. 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 3 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AN AFFIDA VIT 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: .IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT I LEFT FOR USA ON 23/10.2017 AND CAME BACK ON 25/12/2017, THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER WAS RECEIVED ON 11/12/2017, AT THE PREMISES MENTIONED IN THE ORDER. AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED ON OR BEFORE 09/02/2018. HOWEVER, AFTER REACHING INDIA I HAVE SUFFERED ON ACCOUNT OF JET LAG AND THROAT INFECTION AND OTHER MINOR COMPLICATIONS, THEREFORE THE DOCTOR ADVISED FOR 10 DAYS REST. THE RECEIPT OF ORDER WAS NOTICED IN THE FIRST WEEK OF FEBRUARY 2018, AND THROUGH THE WELL - WISHERS, I HAVE IDENTIFIED THE PRESENT COUNSEL ONLY ON 09/02/2 018, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL PAPERS WERE PREPARED SUBSEQUENTLY AND THE SAME IS BEING FILED WITH A DELAY OF 3 DAYS BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT. 3.1 ON PERUSAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IT APPEARS THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS DUE TO THE I LL HEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS SITUATION, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE DELAY OF 3 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO BE CONDONED. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I HEREBY CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL AND PROCEED TO HEAR THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 3 4 AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. IT IS WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SOUGHT BY THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THE EARLIER OCCASIONS BECAUSE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF TH E LD. A.O. SO AS TO PROVIDE ON MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PURSUE HIS CASE AND TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND ARGUED THAT SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER, ON THE GIVEN DATES OF HEARING, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE HIS CLAIM WITH COGENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHEREAS THE ASSESSE E FAILED TO DO SO BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO PASS THE ORDERS BASED ON THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HENCE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ORDER S PASSED BY THE LD . REVENUE AUTHORITIES DO NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE AND THE 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 MERIT IN 4 THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR. ON THE DATE OF HEARING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. T HEREFORE, THE LD. CIT (A) WAS LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL EX - PARTE. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. IN THIS SIT UATION, I DO NOT FIND MUCH STRENGTH IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE PRAYER OF THE LD. AR AND THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL , IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT (A) IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE 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 IR PROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH T HE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER S IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 6 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH FEBRUARY, 2020. SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 20 TH FEBR UARY, 2020. 5 OKK COPY TO: - 1) SURYA PRAKASH ANNAVAJJULA C/O. C/O. MOHD AFZAL, ADVOCATE, 11 - 5 - 465, FLAT NO. 402, SHERSONS RESIDENCY, CRIMINAL COURT ROAD, RED HILLS, HYDERABAD - 04. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURYAPET. 3) THE CIT(A) - 3, HYDERABAD 4) THE PR. CIT - 3, HYDERABAD 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE