Rachamalla Omprakash (HUF), Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Hyderabad

ITA 467/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 46722514 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 20-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 467 & 468/HYD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08 & 2008-09 RACHAMALLA OMPRAKASH (HUF) HYDERABAD. PAN AFGHR0798L INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 8(2), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI S. RAMA RAO REVENUE BY SHRI SOLGY JOSE T. KOTTARAM DATE OF HEARING 15-07-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01-08-2014 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.: BOTH THESE APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED A GAINST SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 10 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 PASSED BY CIT(A)-III, HYDERABAD FOR THE AYS 2007-08 AND 2008-09. AS FACT S ARE IDENTICAL AND GROUNDS ARE COMMON IN BOTH THESE APPEALS, THEY WERE CLUBBED AND HEARD TOGETHER, THEREFORE A COMMON ORDER IS PAS SED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS AS TAKEN FROM ITA NO. 467/HYD/ 2014 ARE, ASSESSEE A HUF DID NOT FILE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2007-08. THE AO REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 14/05/2010 CALLING UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME. AS THERE WAS NO RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE AND SUB SEQUENT NOTICES ISSUED, THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 R.W .S 147 OF THE 2 ITA NO. 467& 468/H/14 RACHAMALLA OMPRAKASH ACT, ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD D ETERMINING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 1,82,27,407/-. 3. AGGRIEVED OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 4. IT IS NOTED BY THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER THAT AS T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 09/12/2011 AND SERVED ON THE AS SESSEE, THE APPEAL ORDINARILY SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE ON OR BEFORE 10/01/2012. SINCE THE SAME WAS FILED ON 27/01/2012, THERE IS A DELAY OF 17 DAYS. THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED A PE TITION BEFORE THE CIT(A) PRAYING FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, THE CIT(A) APPARENTLY NOT BEING SATISFIED WITH THE CAUSE FOR DELAY SHOWN BY T HE ASSESSEE REJECTED THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION BY REFERRIN G TO SOME DECISIONS AND FINALLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN-LIMINE BY HOLDI NG AS UNDER: 5.4 APPLYING THE AFOREMENTIONED RATIOS TO THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ONLY MADE UP A VAGUE STORY. FIRSTLY, HE SAYS THAT THE ORDER WAS SERVED O N A RELATIVE. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THIS FACT. HOWEVER, EVEN I F THE ORDER WAS SERVED ON THE RELATIVE, THE APPELLANT STATES TH AT THIS RELATIVE TAKES CARE OF THE DAY-DAY-DAY BUSINESS AFFAIRS. WHY DID THIS RELATIVE/MANAGER NOT BOTHER ABOUT THIS ORDER. HOW M UCH DELAY WAS CAUSED BY THE MANAGER ? WHAT HAPPENED IN THE IN TERVENING PERIOD ? THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON ANY ISSUE. THERE I S NO CORRECT INFORMATION SUPPLIED AT ALL. 5.5 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, I DO NOT SEE ANY RE ASON TO CONDONE THE DELAY. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS OTHER MATERIALS ON R ECORD. THE SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE DECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERIT IN STEAD OF DISMISSING IT WITHOUT C ONDONING THE DELAY. AT THE OUTSET, IT NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED THAT THE AS SESSMENT ORDER WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 19/12/2011, HENCE, THERE IS A DELAY OF ONLY 9 DAYS AND NOT 17 DAYS AS PRESUMED BY CIT(A). FURTHER, ON PERUSING DELAY CONDONATION PETITION FILED BEFORE TH E CIT(A), A COPY OF 3 ITA NO. 467& 468/H/14 RACHAMALLA OMPRAKASH WHICH IS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK, WE ARE OF THE VI EW THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN T HE PRESCRIBED TIME. LAW IS FAIRLY WELL SETTLED THAT EFFORT SHOULD ALWAY S BE MADE FOR HEARING ISSUES ON MERITS IN STEAD OF DISMISSING THE APPEALS IN-LIMINE ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS. THE RULE OF NATURAL JUSTICE ALSO DEMANDS THAT AN AGGRIEVED PARTY SHOULD BE GIVEN FAIR CHANCE TO ESTA BLISH HIS CASE. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, WE HOLD THAT THIS IS A FIT C ASE WHERE DELAY SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONDONED AND APPEAL SHOULD HAVE BE EN HEARD ON MERITS. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDE R OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR DECIDING ON MERITS AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01/08/2014. SD/- SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JU DICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 1 ST AUGUST, 2014 KV COPY TO:- 1) RACHAMALLA OMPRAKASH, C/O SHRI S. RAMA RAO, ADVO CATE, FLAT NO. 103, H.NO. 3-6-542/4, INDIRADEVI NILAY AM, ST. NO. 7, HIMAYATNAGAR, , HYDERABAD 500 029 2) ITO, WARD 8(2), HYDERABAD. 3) CIT(A)-III, HYDERABAD. 4) THE CIT-II, HYDERABAD 5)THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDER ABAD. 4 ITA NO. 467& 468/H/14 RACHAMALLA OMPRAKASH DESCRIPTION DATE INTLS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON SR.P.S. 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR SR.P.S 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER VP 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./PS SR.P.S. 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.P S. 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.P.S. 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER