Pappireddy Mahesvera Reddy, Visakhapatnam, Hyderabad V. JCIT, Range-2, Tirupathi, Hyderabad

ITA 502/HYD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1951 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-08-2018
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 16-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NILANJAN DEY
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

ITA NO 502 OF 2017 PAPPIREDDY MAHESVERA REDDY VISA KHAPATNAM. PAGE 1 OF 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 502/HYD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) SHRI PAPPIREDDY MAHESVERA REDDY VISAKHAPATNAM PAN: AEIPR4404B VS JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2 TIRUPATI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI S. RAMA RAO FOR REVENUE : SHRI NI L ANJAN DEY, DR O R D E R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y 2011-12 AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-KURNOOL, DATED 19.04.2016. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN DECIDING THE APPEAL WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLA NT. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE LO SS CLAIMED FROM SELF OCCUPIED PROPERTY OF RS.99,138. 4. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTI ON OF THE AO IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND IN EST IMATING THE NET INCOME AT 9% OF THE GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS . THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT T HAT ALL THE WORKS EXECUTED BY THE APPELLANT WERE ON SUB DATE OF HEARING: 29.08 . 201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31.08.2018 ITA NO 502 OF 2017 PAPPIREDDY MAHESVERA REDDY VISA KHAPATNAM. PAGE 2 OF 4 CONTRACT BASIS AND THE NET INCOME NORMALLY DETERMIN ED IS ABOUT 5%. 5. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME O F HEARING. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS SEEN THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 271 DAYS IN FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE US AND THE ASSE SSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY STATING THAT H E WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AN D THEREFORE, WAS NOT AWARE OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) DECIDING THE APPEAL EX-PARTE, AND THEREFORE, THE DELAY HAD OCCURRED. 3. THE LEARNED DR HOWEVER, OPPOSED THE CONDONATION OF DELAY. 4. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS P REVENTED BY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE US . ACCORDINGLY, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE ISS UE AS UNDER. 5. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE ACT SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR AND FI LE THE RELEVANT DETAILS BEFORE THE AO. EVEN BEFORE THE CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY FILED THE APPEAL BUT DID NOT APPEAR OR FILE AN Y DETAILS AND THEREFORE, THE CIT (A) HAD CONFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING A CONTRACTOR, HAD SHIFTED FROM KADAPPA TO VIS AKHAPATNAM TO CARRY OUT HIS BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND THEREFORE, WAS NOT ABLE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT (A). HE PRAYED THAT THE IS SUES MAY BE ITA NO 502 OF 2017 PAPPIREDDY MAHESVERA REDDY VISA KHAPATNAM. PAGE 3 OF 4 REFERRED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (A) OR THE AO FOR RE-ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SUB- CONTRACTOR AND IN VIEW OF THE VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE COORDIN ATE BENCHES OF THIS TRIBUNAL, THE INCOME CAN BE ESTIMATED ONLY AT 5% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. THUS, HE PRAYED FOR THE REMAND OF THE ISS UE. 6. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD N OT AVAILED THE OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN BY THE DEPARTMENT A ND HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT AND THEREFO RE, HE NEED NOT BE GIVEN ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 7. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FEEL THAT SINCE THE ASSESSMENT AS WEL L AS THE FIRST APPEAL HAVE BEEN DECIDED EX-PARTE, THE ASSESSEE SHO ULD BE GIVEN ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY OF PRESENTING ITS CASE. WE THER EFORE, REMAND THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RE-ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. THE ASSESSEE SHALL APPEAR AND FILE THE DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE AO AND THE AO THEREAFTER, SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 8. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST AUGUST, 2018. SD/- SD/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 31 ST AUGUST, 2018. VINODAN/SPS ITA NO 502 OF 2017 PAPPIREDDY MAHESVERA REDDY VISA KHAPATNAM. PAGE 4 OF 4 COPY TO: 1 SHRI S.RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO.102, SHRIYA'S ELEGANCE, 3-6- 643, STREET NO.9, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD 500029 2 JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2 KAPILA TH EERTHAM ROAD, BESIDES SBI, TIRUPATI 3 CIT (A) - KURNOOL 4 PR. CIT - KURNOOL 5 THE DR, ITAT HYDERABAD 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER