Lakshmana Rao Meka , Bangalore V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Hyderabad

ITA 40/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7276 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-12-2019
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 07-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VINAYAK
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay
• Section: 142(1); 274; 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B , HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 40 /HYD/20 19 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 15 - 16 LAKSHMANA RAO MEKA, B - 602 - 1, LIFE APARTMENTS, DEVERABEESANAL HALLI, OUTER RING ROAD , BANGALORE. PAN: AGQPM 3276 N VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO.12(5), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BASHIR BAGH, HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI VINAYAK REVENUE BY: SMT. ESTHER N. HANGHAL, DR DATE OF HEARING: 20/12/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31 /01/2020 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 1, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO. 10015/18 - 19/ITO, WARD - 12(5)/CIT(A) - 1/HYD/2018 - 19, DATED 29/10/2018 PASSED U/S. 271(1)(B) R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2015 - 16. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL: 1. THE IMPUGNED PENALTY PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND AS SUCH, LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. 2 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED U/S. 271(1)(B) BY THE RESPONDENT FOR NOT RESPONDING TO THE NOTICE U/S. 142(1) DATED 18/10/2017 . THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE FACT WITHOUT EVEN SERVING THE ALLEGED NOTICE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS PASSED AND AS SUCH, THE SAE IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PASSING OF THE PENALTY ORDER U/S. 271 (1)(B) FOR A.Y. 2015 - 16 WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HERD, WHICH IS VIOLATE OF SECTION 274 OF THE IT ACT AND AS SUCH, THE PENALTY ORDER IS BAD IN LAW. 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 8 DAYS IN FILING TH E APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN THIS REGARD, LD. AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. FOR REFERENCE, THE RELEVANT PORTIONS FROM THE AFFIDAVIT ARE EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW: - 2. THAT WHILE FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THIS HONBLE TRIBUNAL, THERE IS A DELAY OF 8 DAYS OCCURRED AND THE SAME HAS BEEN OCCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF MY POSTING AT BANGALORE AND I COULD NOT GET LEAVE TO COME DOWN TO HYDERABAD AND MAKE ARRANGEMENT FOR FILING OF THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. 3. THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE DELAY IS PURELY ON ACCOUNT OF THE AFORESAID REASON AND THE SAME IS NEITHER INTENTIONAL NOR WANTON AND IF THE DELAY IS NOT CONDONED, THE PETITIONER WOULD SUFFER IRREPARAB LE LOSS. 4. AFTER HEARING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND ON PERUSAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REASONABLE CAUSE DUE TO WHICH THE APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT . T HEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY CONDONE THE DELAY IN THE 3 FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 5. BR IEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2015 - 16 ON 30/06/2015 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 30,14,050/ - . THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND THEREAFTER NOTICES U/S. 143 (2) AND 142(1) WERE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THERE IS NO COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICES, THE LD. A.O. LEVIED PENALTY OF RS. 10,000/ - INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) DISPOSED OFF THE APPEAL EX - PARTE AND UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE LD. A.O. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6 . 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. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) ALSO DID NOT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION MADE THROUGH E - MAIL . IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD CIT (A) IN ORDER TO PROVIDE PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PURSUE THE APPEAL . LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND ARGUED THAT SUFFICIENT OPPOR TUNITY 4 HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER, ON THE GIVEN DATE OF HEARING I.E., 11/09/2018 , NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) EXCEPT FILING THE REPLY TO THE HEARING NOTICE THROUGH E - MAIL ON 09/10/2018 . LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN SUCH SITUATION, 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 AND APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 7 . W E HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. ON EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR. THE LD. CIT (A) HAD POSTED THE CASE ON 11/09/2018 . HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF T HE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON THE ABOVEMENTIONED DATE OF HEARING. IN THIS SITUATION, WE DO NOT FIND MUCH STRENGTH IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE PRAYER OF THE LD. AR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY REMIT THE MAT TER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT (A) TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL AFRESH 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 FAI LING WHICH THE LD. CIT (A) SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 5 8 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE . PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST JANUARY,2020 . SD/ - SD/ - (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 31 ST JANUARY,2020 OKK COPY TO: - 1) LAKSHMANA RAO MEKA , B - 602 - 1, LIFE APARTMENTS, DEVERABEESANAL HALLI, OUTER RING ROAD , BANGALORE . 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO.12(5), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BASHIR BAGH, HYDERABAD - 84. 3) THE CIT(A) - 1, HYDERABAD 4) THE PR. CIT - 1, HYDERABAD 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE