Alle Bala Nagi Reddy , Kadapa V. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kadapa

ITA 463/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7556 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 13; 68

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.463/HYD/2019 A.Y. 2012 - 13 SRI ALLE BALA NAGI REDDY, KADAPA DISTRICT. PAN: ADOPR 7451 D VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, KADAPA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SMT. S. SANDHYA REVENUE BY: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR PANDEY, DR DATE OF HEARING: 09/03/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23 /03/2021 ORDER PER A . MOHAN ALANKAMONY, A M: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) , KURNOOL IN APPEAL NO. 013 7/CIT(A) - 3/ KNL /201 5 - 16 , DATED 20/02 /2019 PASSED U/S.271(1)(C) R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y.: 20 12 - 13 . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SIX GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL AND THEY ARE EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: - 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DECIDING THE APPEAL EX - PARTE WITHOUT PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONDONED THE DELAY AND ADMITTED THE APPEAL. 2 4. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE ADDITIONS BASED ON WHICH PENALTY U/S. 271( 1)(C) IS LEVIED WERE ALMOST DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THAT, THEREFORE, THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1(C) NEEDS TO BE CANCELLED. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT ADDITION U/S. 68 WAS TOTALLY DELETED AND THE ESTIMATION OF AGRICULTURAL INC OME IS SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED AND HENCE OUGHT TO HAVE DIRECTED DELETION OF PENALTY. 6. ANY OTHER GROUND OR GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US BY STATING THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. A.O. HAD ALSO PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144 OF THE ACT AND DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 29,37,92,150/ - AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.1,91,38,410/ - . IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD.AO IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD . LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND ARGUED THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES HOWEVER, ON THE GIVEN DATES OF HEARING, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFOR E THE LD. A.O. AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). THEREFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO PASS EX - PARTE ORDE RS 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. 3 4. WE 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) AND LD. AO HAD POSTED THE CASE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. HOWEVER, NONE APPEA RED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND LD. AO ON THE DATES OF HEARING. THEREFORE, THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES W ERE LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL EX - PARTE. IN THIS SITUATION, WE DO NOT FIND MUCH STRENGTH IN THE ARG UMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL AND PRAYER OF THE LD. AR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. AO IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL AFRESH AND DECIDE THE ISSUES O N 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. REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THE IR PROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES SHAL L BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER S IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON THE RECORD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 23 RD MARCH, 2021. SD / - SD/ - (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 4 HYDERABAD, DATED: 23 RD MARCH, 2021 OKK COPY TO: - 1) ALLE BALA NAGI REDDY, DHANNAWADA VILLAGE, JAMMALAMADUGU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT 516432. 2) ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, KADAPA. 3) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , KURNOOL. 4) THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KURNOOL. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE