Gouri Shankar Chaganam , Hyderabad V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax , Circle-11(1), Hyderabad

ITA 515/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7379 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-08-2020
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NILANJAN DEY
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Section: 271(1)(c); 244A; 143(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) ITA NO. 515/HYD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014 - 15 SRI GOURI SHANKAR CHAGANAM, HYDERABAD. PAN: ABFPC 5654 C VS. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), SIGNATURE TOWERS, KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI A.V. RAGHU RAM REVENUE BY: SRI NILANJAN DEY, DR DATE OF HEARING: 20/08/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25 /08/2020 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) - 1, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO.10140/18 - 19/DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), HYD/CIT(A) - 1/H YD/2018 - 19, DATED 16/01/2019 PASSED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR THE AY 2014 - 15. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THREE GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL AND THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: - 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW BUT IS WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AS THE SAME IS PASSED WITHOUT DEALING WITH ENTIRE SUBMISSIONS. 2 2. THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. B. REVATHI THOUGH REFERRED TO IN T HE SUBMISSIONS AND THEREBY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED ON THE BASIS OF INVLID NOTICE. 3. THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS. 1,29,869/ - LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE SUBMISSIONS THAT IT WAS DUE TO INADVERTENCE T HAT INTEREST ON INCOME TAX REFUND WAS NOT ADMITTED AND THE LD. CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PRICE WATER HAS HELD THAT THE PENALTY COULD NOT BE LEVIED FOR INADVERTENT OMISSION. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE PROFESSION AS CIVIL CONTRACTOR FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2014 - 15 ON 4/11/2014 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 13,07,030/ - . INITIALLY THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE ACT AND THEREAFTER THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 22/12/2016 WHEREIN THE LD AO MADE ADDITION FOR RS 3,82,080/ - TOWARDS INTEREST EARNED ON INCOME TAX REFUNDS U/S. 244A OF THE ACT WHICH WAS OMITTED TO BE DISCLOSED BY THE A SSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THEREBY FAILED TO OFFER IT FOR TAX. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE LD. AO INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND LEVIED MINIMUM PENALTY OF RS. 1,29,869/ - . ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) PASSED AN EX - PARTE ORDER CONF IRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE LD. AO BASED ON THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) THOUGH SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES WERE PROVIDED TO HIM. 4. AT THE OUTSET, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED CERTAIN GROUNDS BEFORE US WHICH WERE NOT RAISED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). MOREOVER, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) THOUGH THE LD. CIT (A) HAD GRANTED SEVERAL OPPORTUN ITIES BEFORE HIM, BUT ONLY PREFERRED TO SUBMIT A WRITTEN SUBMISSION BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE IT IS OBVIOUS THAT, SINCE THE GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE US BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT RAISED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) THE LD.CIT(A) DID NOT HAVE AN OP PORTUNITY TO CONSIDER THE SAME THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE MATTER IS REQUIRED TO BE REVISITED BY THE LD. CIT (A) AFRESH. HENCE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT (A) FOR DE NOVO CO NSIDERATION. WE ALSO STRONGLY ADVISE THE ASSESSEE AND HIS COUNSEL TO PROMPTLY CO - OPERATE AND APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) IN ORDER TO ASSIST HIM RENDER 3 APPROPRIATE JUSTICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERIT AND EXPEDITE THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HIM. 5. IN T HE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 25 TH AUGUST, 2020. S D/ - SD / - (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 25 TH AUGUST, 2020. OKK COPY TO: - 1 SRI GOURI SHANKAR CHAGANAM, FLAT NO.610, 6TH FLOOR, BABUKHAN ESTATE, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD - 500 001. 2 DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), SIGNATURE TOWERS, OPP. BOTANICAL GARDEN, KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD - 500 084. 3 THE CIT (A) - 1, HYDERABAD. 4 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, HYDERABAD. 5 THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6 GUARD FILE