Preseilla Yeddu, Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(4), Hyderabad

ITA 550/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1309 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-03-2019
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D J PRABHAKAR ANAND
• Assessee Lawyers: T CHAITANYA KUMAR
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

ITA NO 550 OF 2018 PRESEILLA YADU HYDERABAD. PAGE 1 OF 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A SMC BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.550/HYD/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) SMT. PRESEILLA YEDDU HYDERABAD PAN:ABTPY2978B VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 11(4) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI T. CHAITANYA KUMAR FOR REVENUE : SHRI D.J. PRABHAKAR ANAND O R D E R THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y 2012-13 AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-5, HYDERABAD, DATED 31.05. 2017. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, A N INDIVIDUAL AND PROPRIETRESS OF M/S. LAXMI NARASIMHA FILLING STATION, E-FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y 2 012-13 ON 30.09.2012 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.5,21,520/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS WITH A REASON LOW NET PROFIT OR LOSS SHOWN BY YOU FROM LARGE GROSS RECEIPTS. ACCOR DINGLY, NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, BANK A/C STATEMENTS, PURCHASE AND SALE DEED ETC., HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO COMPLIANC E BY THE ASSESSEE. ON SUBSEQUENT OCCASION, THE ASSESSEES BR OTHER APPEARED AND SUBMITTED COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENTS AND DATE OF HEARING : 13.03.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15.03.2019 ITA NO 550 OF 2018 PRESEILLA YADU HYDERABAD. PAGE 2 OF 4 INVOICES/DETAILS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SHOW CA USE THE REASON FOR LOW NET PROFIT, BUT THERE WAS NO EXPLANA TION AND THEREFORE, THE AO ESTIMATED THE PROFIT AT 0.42% OF THE GROSS SALES AND ACCORDINGLY DETERMINED THE NET PROFIT AT RS.12, 15,327/- AND BROUGHT IT TO TAX. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRE D AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) WHO DISMISSED THE SAME FOR NON-A PPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFO RE US BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW TO THE EXTENT IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WITHOUT GIVING ANY FURTHER OPPORTUNITY. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER I N ESTIMATING THE NET @O. 4 2% ON TURNOVER OF RS 28,93,63,618/- WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE APPELLANT SUBMISSIONS. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER I N SUSTAINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS 12,02,080/ -- AS AGAINST THE INCOME ADMITTED OF RS 5,34,773/- 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IN CHARGING OF INTEREST OF RS 70,830/- U/S 234B AND RS 1,345/- U/S 234C OF THE LT ACT. 6. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME O F HEARING. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY REASONABLE CAUSE FROM APPEARANCE BEFORE THE CIT (A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHORISE D REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT APPEARED BEF ORE THE CIT ITA NO 550 OF 2018 PRESEILLA YADU HYDERABAD. PAGE 3 OF 4 (A) DUE TO WHICH, THE CIT (A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMINI. IN FACT THERE IS A DELAY OF 43 DAYS AND EVEN IN THE SAID AP PLICATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE PREVIOUS AUDITOR OF THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT INFORMED ABOUT THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL AND THEREAFTER WHEN SHE CHANGED THE AUDITOR, SHE CAME TO KNOW ABOU T THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL AND FILED THIS APPEAL BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL. THUS, THERE IS A DELAY OF 43 DAYS IN FILING THE APP EAL. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE, PRAYED FOR COND ONATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL A ND ALSO SOUGHT REMAND THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (A). 4. THE LEARNED DR WAS ALSO HEARD. 5. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REPRESE NTED BEFORE THE CIT (A) AND THEREFORE, THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF NON- PROSECUTION AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL B EFORE ME ALSO BELATEDLY WITH A DELAY OF 43 DAYS. TAKING NOTE OF T HE ASSESSEES CONTENTION IN THE CONDONATION APPLICATION, I CONDON E THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL AND I DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER T O REMAND THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (A) FOR A DECISION ON MERITS. THE ASSESSEE SHALL COOPERATE WITH THE CIT (A) BY FILING ALL THE NECESSARY DETAILS. ITA NO 550 OF 2018 PRESEILLA YADU HYDERABAD. PAGE 4 OF 4 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH MARCH, 20198. SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 15 TH MARCH, 2019. VINODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1 SHRI T.CHAITANYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE. FLAT NO.102, GO URI APARTMENT, URDULANE, HIMAYATHNAGAR, HYDERABAD 2 ITO WARD 11(4) HYDERABAD 3 CIT (A)-5 HYDERABAD 4 PR. CIT 5 HYDERABAD 5 THE DR, ITAT HYDERABAD 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER