Gorupally Satish Reddy , Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Suryapet

ITA 492/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4914 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-02-2020
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT MITRA
• Section: 144; 13; 20

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B - SMC, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.492/HYD/201 9 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2015 - 16 GORUPALLY SATISH REDDY, HYDERABAD - 035. PAN: AHFPG 5106 M VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, SURYAPET, DISTRICT NALGONDA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI MOHD. AFZAL REVENUE BY: SRI RAJAT MITRA, DR DATE OF HEARING: 05/02/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20 /02/2020 ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 3, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO. 0119/ITO - 1/SYP/CIT(A) - 3/2017 - 18, DATED 13/12/2018 PASSED U/S. 144 OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2015 - 16. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AGAINST THE LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE AND PROBABILITIES OF CASE. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE A.O. WHEREIN INCOME FROM WINES BUSINESS WAS ESTIMATED AT 5% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS OF RS. 1,56,69,672/ - . 3. THE LD. CIT( A) OUGHT TO HAVE DIRECTED THE A.O. TO ESTIMATE 3% OF PROFIT ON PURCHASES OF THE WINE BUSINESS BY FOLLOWING THE RATIONALE OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HONBLE TRIBUNAL. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LD. A.O. WHEREIN THE INCOME IS ESTIMATIN G AT 8% ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS. 3,23,32,471. 2 5. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THIS HONBLE ITAT MENTIONED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NAMELY, M/S. E ESHWAR REDDY & CO. VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 668 & 670/HYD/2009. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE A.O. WHEREIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE REJECTED. 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO AMEND OR MODIFY THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, IF IT IS CONSIDERED NECESSARY. 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 13 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT STATING THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. FOR REFERENCE, THE RELEVANT PORTION FROM THE AFFIDAVIT IS EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW: .THE ASSESSEE WAS HOSPITALIZED FROM 20/01/2019 TO 30/03/2019, TREATMENT FOR CARDIAC PROBLEM (COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DR. BALAJI IS ENCLOSED HE REWITH). HE WAS UNDER THE TREATMENT OF DR BALAJI AT SAIDATTA HOSPITAL BAGH AMBERPET, HYDERABAD. AFTER HIS DISCHARGE FROM HOSPITAL, THE APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT ON 04/04/2019 WITH A DELAY OF 13 DAYS. 3.1 ON PERUSAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IT APPEARS THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS DUE TO THE ILL HEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS SITUATION, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE DELAY OF 13 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO BE CONDONED. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I HEREBY CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND PROCEED TO HEAR THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPE R OPPORTUNITY TO THE 3 ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO UNAVOIDABLE REASONS, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HER COUNSEL COULD APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. AO, AND THEREFORE, THE LD. AO PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) ON THE DATE OF HEARING AND THE LD. CIT (A) HASTILY DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL EX - PARTE. THE LD. AR FURTHER PLEADED BEFORE US THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PURSUE THE APPEAL P ROPERLY BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THE EARLIER OCCASIONS ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE PROVIDED BY REMITTING BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD AO FOR FRESH HEARING. 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, HOWEVER, ON THE GIVEN DATES OF HEARING, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AND THE LD. AO. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. REVENUE AUT HORITIES 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 D ISMISSED. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. ON EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR. THE LD. CIT (A) HAD POSTED THE CASE ON 4 SEVERAL OCCASIONS. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON THE GIVEN DATES OF HEARING. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALSO, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT HIS CASE. THEREFORE, THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES WERE L EFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO PASS THE ORDERS EX - PARTE. IN THIS SITUATION, I DO NOT FIND MUCH STRENGTH IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE PRAYER OF THE LD. AR AND THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JU STICE, I HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. AO FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION OF THE APPEAL 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 AUTHORITIES 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. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH FEBRUARY, 2020. SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 20 TH FEBR UARY, 2020. OKK 5 COPY TO: - 1) GORUPALLY SATISH REDDY, C/O. MOHD AFZAL, ADVOCATE, 402, SHERSONS RESIDENCY, 11 - 5 - 465, CRIMINAL COURT ROAD, RED HILLS, HYDERABAD - 04. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, SURYAPET, DISTRICT NALGONDA. 3) THE CIT(A) - 3, HYDERABAD 4) THE PR. CIT - 3, HYDERABAD 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE