Kala Rama Rao, Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Hyderabad

ITA 525/Hyd/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1430 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 25-09-2020
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANDEEP MEHATA
• Assessee Lawyers: Y V BHANUNARAYANA RAO
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Condonation of delay
• Section: 69A; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH SMC , HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 525/HYD/ 2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2017 - 18 KALA RA MA RAO, HYDERABAD. PAN: ANIPR 8482 L VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8(3), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI Y.V. BHANUNARAYANA RAO REVENUE BY: SHRI SANDEEP MEHATA, DR DATE OF HEARING: 09/02/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10 /02/2021 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) - 2, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO.12946/2019 - 20/CIT(A) - 2, DATED 19/02/2020 PASSED U/S. 144 R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE AY: 2017 - 18. 2. THE ASSESS EE HAS RAISED FOUR GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL AND THEY ARE EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) - 2, H YDERABAD IS ERRONEOUS AND BAD IN LAW. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN PASSING EX - PARTE ORDERS UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 42,18,028/ - MADE BY THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 69A OF THE 2 IT ACT, 1961 AND TAXING T HE SAME U/S. 115BBE AT RS. 50,83,131/ - (INCLUSIVE OF INTEREST OF RS. 18,24,704/ - ). 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL ON ACCOUNT OF NON - PROSECUTION AND ON MERITS WITHOUT EVEN GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND / OR TO ADD ANY FRESH GROUNDS(S) OF A PPEAL AT OR BEFORE THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL . 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 159 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL 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 AFFIDAVIT IS EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW: - 1 . . 2 . THAT THE APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT OF 60 DAYS BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT, HYDERABAD DUE TO RESTRICTION OF MOVEMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF LOCKDOWN IMPOSED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AS WELL AS THE STATE GOVERNMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF COVID - 19 PANDEMIC. 3. THAT I AM A PETTY CONTRACTOR AND NOT WELL VERSED WITH ACCOUNTS AND INCOME TAX LAW AND AS SUCH I AM DEPENDENT ON MY PART TIME ACCOUNTANT, MR. SANTOSH GADE FOR ALL MY ACCOUNTING AND TAXATION RELATED MATTERS. 4. THAT THE PART TIME ACCOUNTANT, MR. SANTOSH GADE WENT TO HIS NATIVE PLACE BEING SHANKARAMPALLY, POST DHANWADA, M.O. KATARA, DISTRICT JAYASHANKAR BHUPALLY, TELANGANA TO ATTEND A FAMILY FUNCTION ON 19/03/2020 AND GOT STUCK THERE FOR A LONG TIME DUE TO IMPOSITION OF LOCKDOWN. UPON RETURNING TO HYDERABAD, HE FELL SICK AND TESTED POSITIVE FOR COVID - 19 ON 24/7/ 2020. A FTER RECOVERING FROM COVID - 19, HE STARTED ATTENDING OFFICE RECENTLY AND HE CONTACTED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT BY NAME SRI Y.V. BHANU NARAYAN RAO, TO FILE AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD. THUS, THE APPEAL IN FORM 36 WAS GOT PREPARED AND IS NOW BEING FILED AFTER A DELAY OF 155 DAYS. 3 4. ON PERUSAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE DELAY IS DUE TO GENUINE REASON SINCE THE ACCOUNTANT WHO IS LOOKING AFTER THE TAX MATTERS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS OUT OF STATION AND HELD UP IN HIS NATIVE PLACE DUE TO LOCKDOWN CAUSED BY COVID - 19 PANDEMIC AND THEREFORE, HE COULD NOT APPROACH THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT IN TIME. HENCE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I HEREBY CONDONE THE DELAY OF 159 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 US 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. 42,18, 028/ - INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A OF THE ACT . IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) H AD ALSO PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER WITHOUT PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD . 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 OBJEC TED 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). UND ER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE 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 4 THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES DO NOT CALL FOR ANY INTER FERENCE 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 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 MATERIAL 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 JUSTICE, 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 AUTHORITIES IN THEIR PROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERI TS BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON THE RECORD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 5 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 TENTH OF FEBRUARY, 2021. SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 10 TH FEBRUARY, 2021. OKK COPY TO: - 1) SRI KALA RAMA RAO, H.NO.4 - 938/1, MARTHANDA NAGAR, NEW HAFIZPET , KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8(3), SIGNATURE TOWERS, OPP. BOTANICAL GARDENS, KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD. 3) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 2, HYDERABAD. 4) THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE