Alapati Murali Krishna, Guntur V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), , Guntur

ITA 446/VIZ/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5272 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 27-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P SRINIVASA MURTHY
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . , . . , BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . / I . T .A.NO. 446 /V IZ /201 8 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 14 - 15 ) ALAPATI MURALI KRISHNA D.NO.26 - 3 - 317, 5 TH LA NE ASHOK NAGAR GUNTUR [PAN :A LVPA6388D ] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2(2) GUNTUR ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : S HRI G.V.N.HARI , A R / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.SRINIVASA MURTHY , D R / DATE OF HEARING : 1 8 . 0 7 . 201 9 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 .0 8 . 201 9 / O R D E R P ER SHRI D.S.SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [CIT(A)] - 1, GUNTUR VIDE APPEAL NO.10076/2017 - 18 DATED 25.06.2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.)2014 - 15. 2 I.T.A. NO . 446 /VIZ/201 8, A.Y.20 1 4 - 1 5 ALAPATI MURALI KRISHNA, GUNTUR 2. IN T HIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WITH A DELAY OF 278 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE FILED CONDONATION PETITION REQUESTING TO CONDONE THE DELAY. DURING THE HEARING, THE LD.A.R SUBMITTED THAT THIS CASE WAS REPRESENTED BY ONE SHRI JONNALAGADDA RAMAIAH CHOUDHARY, ITP, WHO WAS GIVEN AUTHORIZATION TO REPRESENT THE CASE. DURING THE PENDENCY OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS HOSPITALIZED AND COULD NOT ATTEND TO THE OFFICE WORK AND SUBSEQUENTLY EXPIRED ON 25.03.2 017. DUE TO LACK OF PROPER KNOWLEDGE OF INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FOCUS ON FOLLOW UP ACTION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND SUBSEQUENT FILING OF APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO. ON BEING P RESSURISED FOR PAYMENT OF THE DEMAND BY T HE DEPARTMENT, THE ASSESSEE COULD UNDERSTAND THE POST ASSESSMENT CONSEQUENCES AND APPROACHED THE PRESENT AR FOR REMEDIAL MEASURES. ON THE ADVICE OF THE LD.AR, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WITH A DELAY OF 278 DAYS. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE MADE REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, THE LD.CIT(A) DID NOT CONDONE THE DELAY AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN - LIMINE. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 3. DURING THE APPEAL HEARING, THE LD.AR ARGUED THAT THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WHO WAS LOOKING AFTER THE CASE WAS EXPIRED AND THE 3 I.T.A. NO . 446 /VIZ/201 8, A.Y.20 1 4 - 1 5 ALAPATI MURALI KRISHNA, GUNTUR ASSESSEE WAS UNAWARE OF PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE PROCEDURE FOR FILING THE APPEAL. SINCE THERE IS SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FILING THE APPEAL WITH THE DELAY, THE LD.AR REQUESTED TO CONDONE T HE DELAY AND REMIT THE APPEAL BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED FOR CONDONING THE DELAY AND REMITTING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, DURING THE PENDENCY OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WHO WAS REPRESENTING THE CASE HAD EXPIRED, BECAUSE OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE SUFFERED FOR LACK OF PROPER GUIDANCE. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT MAKE FOLLOW UP THE ASSESSMENT AND TAKE REMEDIAL MEASURES FOR FILING THE APPEAL. ONLY ON PRESSING DEMAND BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE REALIZED THE SERIOUSNESS AND APPROACHED THE PRESENT COUNSEL, WHO HAS FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WITH A DELAY OF 278 DAYS. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ITP HAD EXPIRED AND THE FACT WAS NOT DISPUTED BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT GET ANY BENEFIT BY NOT FILING THE APPEAL. THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT TH ERE IS SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE 4 I.T.A. NO . 446 /VIZ/201 8, A.Y.20 1 4 - 1 5 ALAPATI MURALI KRISHNA, GUNTUR CAUSE FOR CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). HENCE WE CONDONE THE DELAY OF 278 DAYS AND REMIT THE APPEAL BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER GIVI NG OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST AUGUST, 2019. SD/ - SD/ - ( . ) ( . . ) (V. DURGA RAO) ( D.S. SUNDER SINGH ) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /VISAKHAPATNAM /DATED : 21 .0 8 .2019 L.RAMA, SPS 5 I.T.A. NO . 446 /VIZ/201 8, A.Y.20 1 4 - 1 5 ALAPATI MURALI KRISHNA, GUNTUR / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. / THE ASSESSEE - ALAPATI MURALI KRISHNA, D.NO.26 - 3 - 317, 5 TH LA NE ASHOK NAGAR , GUNTUR 2. / THE REVENUE - INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2), GUNTUR 3. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , GUNTUR 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1 , GUNTUR 5 . , , / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM