Peddireddy Krishna Reddy , Kadapa V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Proddutur

ITA 564/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7031 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-10-2019
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NILANJAN DEY
• Assessee Lawyers: K C DEVDAS CA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B - SMC, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.564/HYD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014 - 15 SRI PEDDIREDDY KRISHNA REDDY, 1 - 2, KALASAPADU, KADAPA 516360. PAN: AMHPP 4207 H VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, PRODDATUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI K.C. DEVDAS, CA AR REVENUE BY: SRI NILANJAN DEY - DR DATE OF HEARING: 17/10/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30 /10/2019 ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), KURNOOL IN APPEAL NO.024/CIT(A)/KNL/2017 - 18, DATED 18/10/2018 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2014 - 15. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND S IN HI S APPEAL: - 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), KURNOOL IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WHICH WAS DUE TO A REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE IS UNSUSTAINABLE BOTH ON LAW AND ON FACTS. 2. THE LD. CIT(A), KURNOOL OUGHT TO HAVE DECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERITS NOTWITHSTANDING THERE WAS A DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. 2 3. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONDONED THE DELAY AS THE APPELLANT CARRIED ON THE BUSINESS IN LIQUOR IN A VILLAGE AND NOT BEING AWARE OF INTRICATE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, T HERE WAS A DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND THAT THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONDONED THE DELAY AND ADJUDICATED THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE INCOME FROM WINES BUSINESS WAS ESTIMATED AT 3% OF THE STOCK PUT TO SALE BY THE ITAT, HYDERABAD AND THEREFORE, OUGHT TO HAVE ADJUDICATED THE SAME ON MERITS. 5. ANY OTHER GROUND OR GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3 . AT THE OUTSET, LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 101 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL. IN THIS REGARD, LD. AR BROUGHT MY ATTENTION TO WARDS THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY WHEREIN THE REASON FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT WAS EXPLAINED. FOR REFERENCE, THE RELEVANT PORTI ONS FROM THE AFFIDAVIT IS EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW: - 1. .. 2. I AM AN ILLITERATE AND NOT WELL CONVERSANT WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND I CARRIED LIQUOR BUSINESS IN WINES FOR TWO YEARS. I DONT HAVE ANY FORMAL EDUCATION. 3. I WAS NOT WELL CONVERSANT WITH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ON THE BASIS OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O., I RELIED ON SOME PROFESSIONAL, WHO DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE A.O. OR BEFORE THE CIT(A). 4. . 5. 6. . 7. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WAS PASSED ON 18/10/2018 AND WAS SERVED ON 08/11/2018. WHEN I CONSULTED MR. BHASKARA REDDY, I WAS INFORMED THAT AN APPEAL TO THE 3 ITAT IS TO BE FILED WITH A PRAYER FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE APPEAL IS BEING PRESENTLY FILED ON 18 /04/2019 WITH A DELAY OF 101 DAYS. 8. 9. THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO DEFAULT AND THE ENTIRE DELAY OCCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF MY ILLITERACY AND NOT KNOWING THE NUANCES OF LAW AND THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT PRAYS TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 101 DAYS. 10 . 4. AFTER HEARING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND ON PERUSAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL , I DO NOT FIND MUCH MERIT IN THEIR SUBMISSIONS. H OWEVER , CONSIDERING THE IGNORANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AS HE IS NOT LITERATE , IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I HEREBY CONDONE THE DELAY IN THE FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL . 5. ON MERITS, AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR BRIEFLY NARRATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER WITHOUT PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF 483 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSEE HA D FILED PETITION SEEKING CONDONATION O F DELAY WHEREIN IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT DUE TO ILL NESS OF THE ASSESSEE , THE APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) . HOWEVER, IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE SICKNESS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH A LONG PERIOD, THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT CONSIDER THE ASSESSEES PRAYER FOR CONDON ATION OF DELAY AND PASSED EX - PARTE 4 ORDER DISMISSING THE APPEAL. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE FINANCIAL POSITION IS VERY PRECARIOUS. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD CIT (A) IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PURSUE THE APPEAL . LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED 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. CIT ( A). THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO PASS EX - PARTE ORDER ON MERITS BASED ON MATERIALS ON RECORD. HENCE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE 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) HAD POSTED THE CASE ON TWO OCCASIONS IE., ON 05/06/2018 AND 24/08/2018. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE ABOV E - MENTIONED DATES OF HEARING. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT (A) WAS LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL EX - PARTE ON MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED PETITION SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY ONLY FOR 120 DAYS WHEREAS THE DELAY WAS 483 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IN THIS SITUATION, I DO NOT FIND MUCH STRENGTH IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING 5 THE PRAYER OF THE LD. AR AND POOR FINANCIAL POSITION OF THE ASSES SEE , IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT (A) IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL AFRESH BY PROVIDING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. AT THE SAME BREATH, I ALSO HEREBY CAUTION THE ASSESSEE TO PR OMPTLY 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 THE RECORD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH OCTOBER, 2019. SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 30 TH OCTOBER , 2019 OKK COPY TO: - 1) SRI PEDDIREDDY KRISHNA REDDY C/O. M/S. SEKHAR & CO., 133/4, RASHTRAPATHI ROAD, SECUNDERABAD - 500003. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, PRODDATUR. 3) THE CIT(A) , KURNOOL. 4) THE PR. CIT, KURNOOL. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE