Bhadraiah Koka , Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Hyderabad

ITA 540/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3866 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-11-2019
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K RAVIKIRAN
• Assessee Lawyers: K A SAI PRASAD
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD BENCH A - SMC, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.539/HYD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 KOKA SAI KUMAR YADAV, HYDERABAD. PAN: BJSPK 7364 M VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(2), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NOS.540/HYD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 BHADRAIAH KOKA, HYDERABAD. PAN: AEMPK 0034 Q VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(2), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NOS.541/HYD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 KOKA VIJAYALAKSHMI, HYDERABAD. PAN: AFRPK 5771 N VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(2), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI K.A. SAI PRASAD REVENUE BY: SRI K. RAVI KIRAN - DR DATE OF HEARING: 20/11/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20 /11/2019 ORDER THE CAPTIONED THREE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEES AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 3, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL 2 NOS.0122, 0123 & 10057/ITO - 7(2)/HYD/CIT(A) - 3/2017 - 18 DATED 10 TH AND 11 TH JANUARY, 2019 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 & U/S. 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2010 - 11. SINCE, A LL THE THREE ASSESSEES ARE RELATED TO EACH OTHER AND THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL AND INTERRELATED WHEREIN THE LD. CIT(A) HAD CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO BY PASSING EX - PARTE ORDERS, THESE APPEALS ARE CLUBBED AND HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 1 DAY IN FILING THE APPEAL S BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. AR HAS FILED A PETITION SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY WHEREIN THE REASON FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL S WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT WAS EXPLAINED DUE TO HIS PRE - OCCUPATION . FOR REFERENCE, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE PET I TION IS EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW: - SINCE, I WAS HELD UP IN ARRANGEMENTS AND OTHER RELATED WORKS IN CONNECTION WITH THE MARRIAGE OF MY DAUGHTER ON 21/4/2019 THE APPEAL PAPERS COULD NOT BE SIGNED BY ME IN TIME. THE APPEAL PAPERS WERE SEN T TO MY HOUSE FOR SIGNATURE AND THE APPEAL WAS FILED ON 16 TH APRIL, 2019. THUS, THERE WAS A DELAY OF 1 DAY IN FILING THIS APPEAL. 3 . CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL S WHICH APPEARS TO BE GENUINE AND SINCE THE DELAY BEING NOT ATTRIBUTABLE DUE TO THE FAULT OF THE ASSESSEE , IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I HEREBY CONDONE THE DELAY IN THE FILING THE APPEAL S BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND PROCEED T O HEAR THE APPEALS ON MERITS. 3 4 . AT THE OUTSET, LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PASSED EX - PARTE ORDERS IN ALL THE THREE APPEALS WITHOUT AFFORDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEES OF BEING HEARD. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT A LL THE THREE APPEALS MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT (A) FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEES TO PURSUE THEIR APPEALS. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND ARGUED BY STATING THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER, ON THE GIVEN DATES OF HEARING, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE S NOR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO PASS EX - PARTE ORDER BASED ON THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HENCE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ORDER S PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED . 4. 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 CASES ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEES BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON THE DATES OF HEARING. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT (A) WAS LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL S EX - PARTE. IN THIS SITUATION, I DO NOT FIND MUCH STRENGTH IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. A R. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE PRAYER OF THE LD. AR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT 4 (A) IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL S AFRESH ON MERITS BY PROVIDING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE S OF BEING HEARD. AT THE SAME BREATH, I ALSO HEREBY CAUTION THE ASSESSEE S TO PROMPTLY CO - OPERATE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) IN THE PROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH THE LD. CIT (A) SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON TH E RECORD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 5 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE S ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH NOVEMBER, 2019. SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 20 TH NOVEMBER , 2019 OKK 5 COPY TO: - 1) (I) KOKA SAI KUMAR YADAV (II) BHADRAIAH KOKA , (III) KOKA VIJAYALAKSHMI C/O. CH. PARTHASARATHY & CO., 1 - 1 - 298/2/B/3, 1 ST FLOOR, ASHOK NAGAR, HYDERABAD - 020. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 7(2), HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT(A) - 3 , HYDERABAD 4) THE PR. CIT - 3 , HYDERABAD 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE