BATTU KUSUMA KUMARI, TIRUPATHI V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 340/Hyd/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0037 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 18-08-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T. SUNIL GOUTAM
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 153C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.340/Hyd/2021 A.Y. 2008-09 Battu Kusuma Kumari, Tirupati. PAN: AOCPK 3362 H VS. ACIT (i/c), Central Circle, Tirupati. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Sri T. Sunil Goutam, Sr. AR Date of hearing: 10/01/2022 Date of pronouncement: 18/01/2022 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, A.M: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Visakhapatnam in appeal No.113/2014-15/CIT(A)- 3/VSP/2017-18, dated 26/03/2018 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153C and U/s. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The assessee has raised three grounds in her appeal and they are extracted herein below for reference: “1. The Learned Assessing Officer is unjustified in disallowing the investment made towards the purchase of property. 2 2. The Assessing Officer is not justified in adding loan taken from Mr. Y. Sivarami Reddy to the income declared. 3. The Learned Assessing Officer is erred in addition the personal savings of the assessee to the total income.” 3. At the time of hearing, none appeared before us on behalf of the assessee to represent her case. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 1164 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee had filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay wherein the reasons for filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit was explained. For reference, the relevant portion from the affidavit is extracted herein below: - “........ That my health was in bad condition and got hospitalized and therefore the appeal could not be filed well within the stipulated time (A copy of medical certificate being enclosed herewith.” 4. On perusal of the affidavit filed by the assessee, We are of the view that the reason for the delay was due to severe ill health of the assessee because of which she could not file the appeal papers before the Tribunal within the stipulated time. Therefore, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST. Katiji & Ors (167 ITR 471) (SC), We are of the view that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause in filing the appeal beyond the stipulated time and therefore, in the interest of justice, We 3 hereby condone the delay of 1164 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 5. At the outset, on examining the order of the Ld. CIT(A), it appears that the Ld. CIT (A) has passed ex-parte order. Before us, the Ld. DR argued vehemently by stating that sufficient opportunities had been provided to the assessee however, on the given dates of hearing, neither the assessee nor her Representative appeared before the Ld. CIT (A). Therefore the Ld. CIT (A) had no other option but to pass ex-parte order based on the materials available on record. Hence, it was pleaded that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) does not call for any interference. 6. We have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case and perused the materials on record. On examining the order of the Ld. CIT(A), We find that Ld. CIT (A) had posted the case on several occasions. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the CIT(A) on the dates of hearing. Therefore, the Ld. CIT (A) was left with no other option except to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte. In this situation, we are of the view that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have decided the case on merits instead of dismissing the appeal by simply stating that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting her appeal. Considering these facts and circumstances of the case as well as the issues involved in the appeal, in the interest of justice, We hereby remit 4 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, We also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate before the Ld. CIT (A) in the proceedings failing which the Ld. CIT (A) 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 hereinabove. Pronounced in the open Court on the 18 th January, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (S.S. GODARA) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 18 th January, 2022. OKK Copy to:- 1) Appellant: Battu Kusuma Kumari, D.No.13-3-344/11A, Jabbar Layout, Tirupati. 2) Respondent: ACIT, Central Circle, Tirupati. 3) The CIT(A)-3, Visakhapatnam. 4) The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Visakhapatnam. 5) The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 6) Guard File