Raghava Reddy Kunam , Hyderabad V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax , Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

ITA 486/Hyd/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1569 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 10-02-2021
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2020
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANDEEP MEHTA
• Assessee Lawyers: M V JOSHI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Condonation of delay
• Section: 69A; 144; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH SMC, HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 486/HYD/2020 A.Y. 2017 - 18 RAGHAVA REDDY KUNAM, HYDERABAD. PAN: VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI M.V. JOSHI REVENUE BY: SHRI SANDEEP MEHTA, DR DATE OF HEARING: 10/02/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15 /02/2021 ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 2, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO. 12977/2019 - 20/CIT(A) - 2, DATED 25/02/ 2020 PASSED U/S. 144 R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2017 - 18. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED NINE GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL AND THEY ARE EXTRACTED HER EIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: - 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 35,00,000/ - MADE U/S. 69A OF THE ACT. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT IS IN POSSESSION OF DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT HE HAD EARNED 2 NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 35,00,000/ - DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2017 - 18. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT IS IN POSSESSION OF EVIDENCE FOR EARNING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 35,00,000/ - DURING THE YEAR OF ACCOUNT WHICH WOULD BE SUBMITTED IF ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY IS GIVEN. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT IS EARNING AGRICULTURAL INCOME EVERY YEAR AND CLAIMING THE SAME DEDUCTION IN THE RETURN AS PER SUB - SECTION 1 OF SECTION 10 OF THE ACT. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A OF THE ACT AND MA KING ADDITION OF RS. 35,00,000/ - TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INCOME. 8. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT EARNED ANY UNEXPLAINED INCOME OTHER THAN THE INCOME WHICH WAS DECLARED IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. 9. THE APPELLANT MAY, ADD OR ALTER OR AMEND OR MODIFY OR SUBSTITUTE OR DELETE AND / OR RESCIND AL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 03 DAYS IN FILING THE APP EAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY WHEREIN THE REASONS FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT WAS EXPLAINED. FOR REFERENCE, THE RELEVANT PORTION FROM THE AFFIDA VIT IS EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW: - THE CIT(A) ORDER IN RESPECT OF THE A.Y. 2017 - 18 WAS RECEIVED ON 6/7/2020, AND THE SAME COULD NOT BE FILED IN TIME AS THE PAPERS HAD BEEN MISPLACED BY ONE OF THE OFFICE STAFF AND THE SAME COULD BE TRACED OUT AND COULD BE FILED ON 7/09/2020 WITH THE DELAY OF 3 DAYS AS THE APPEAL WAS DUE FOR FILING ON 4/9/2020 AND INSTEAD OF THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN FILED ON 07/09/2020. THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL MAY PLEASE BE CONDONED AND THE APPEAL MAY PLEASE BE CONSIDERED. 4. ON PERUSAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE DELAY WAS DUE TO GENUINE REASON BECAUSE IT APPEARS THAT ONE OF THE OFFICE STAFF OF THE ASSESSEE MISPLACED THE RELEVANT PAPERS AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SIGN THE APPEAL PAPERS IN TIME. HENCE, 3 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I HEREBY CONDONE THE DELAY OF 03 DAYS IN THE FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 5 . AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE ME THAT THE LD. AO HAD PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER U/S. 144 OF THE ACT WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 35,00,000/ - U/S. 69A OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) ALSO PAS SED EX - PARTE ORDER WITHOUT PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE PROVIDED WITH ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO PURSUE HIS CASE BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND OBJECTED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND ARGUED THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, ON THE GIVEN DATES OF HEARING, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. AO AND BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, TH E LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO PASS EX - PARTE ORDERS ON MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HENCE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES DO NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 6 . I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. ON EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I FIND MERIT IN 4 THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR. THE LD. CIT (A) AS WELL AS THE LD. AO HAD POSTED THE CASE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. AO ON THE GIVEN DATES OF HEARING AND EVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE, THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES WERE LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO PASS ORDERS BASED ON THE MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THIS SITUATION, I DO NOT FIND MUCH STRENGTH IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE PRAYER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND THE NATURE OF ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTIC E, I HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. AO FOR DE - NOVO CONSIDERATION THEREBY PROVIDING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. AT THE SAME BREATH, I ALSO HEREBY CAUTION THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTLY CO - OPERATE BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AU THORITIES IN THEIR PROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON THE RECORD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 15 TH OF FEBRUARY, 2021. SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 5 HYDERABAD, DATED: 15 TH FEBRUARY, 2021. OKK COPY TO: - 1) RAGHAVA REDDY KUNAM C/O. P. MURALI & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 6 - 3 - 655/2/3, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD 500 082. 2) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), HYDERABAD. 3) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 2, HYDERABAD. 4) THE PRINCIPAL C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE