Madium Vijay Kumar , Anantapur V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Anantapur

ITA 566/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2125 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-02-2020
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A - SMC , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 566/HYD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014 - 15 SRI MUDIUM VIJAY KUMAR, C/O. I. NAGRAJU, R.NO.22, JCNR COMPLEX, TADIPATRI, ANANTAPUR DIST. PAN: AKOPK 1941 J VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, ANANTAPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI K.C. DEVDAS REVENUE BY: SRI SUNIL KUMAR PANDEY DATE OF HEARING: 17/02/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 19 /03/2020 ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), KURNOOL IN ITA NO. 010/CIT(A)/KNL/2017 - 18, DATED 18/10/2018 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2014 - 15. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), KURNOOL IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WHICH WAS DUE TO REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE IS UNSUSTAINABLE BOTH ON LAW AND ON FACTS. 2. THE LD. CIT(A), KURNOOL OUGHT TO HAVE D ECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERITS NOTWITHSTANDING THERE WAS A DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. 3. THE LD. CIT(A), KURNOOL OUGHT TO HAVE CONDONED THE DELAY AS THE APPELLANTS CARRIED ON THE BUSINESS IN LIQUOR IN A VILLAGE AND NOT BEING AWARE OF INTRICATE PROVISIONS OF THE 2 INCOME TAX ACT, THERE WAS A DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONDONED THE DELAY AND ADJUDICATED THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 4. ANY OTHER GROUND OR GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3 . AT THE OUTSET, IT IS OBS ERVED FROM THE RECORD THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 100 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 PORTIONS FROM THE AFFIDAVIT IS EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW: - 1 2. 3. I WAS IN WINES BUSINESS FOR TWO YEARS ONLY. FOR THE A.Y. 2014 - 15, AN ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE CIT (A) KURNOOL. I WAS INFORMED ON 09/11/2018. AS 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 LD. CIT(A), KURNOOL. 4.. 5. ON FURTHER APPEAL TO THE LD. CIT(A), KURNOOL, MY AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT APPEAR AND THE CIT(A) DISPOSED OFF THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WERE NO COMPLIANCES AND THAT THERE BEING NO RESPONSE AND MERELY RELYING ON THE REASONS OF THE A.O., DISMISSED THE APPEAL. THERE WAS NO ADJUDICATIO N ON MERITS. 6. LATER SOMETIME IN THE FIRST WEEK OF APRIL, 2019, I APPROACHED MR. BHASKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE, WHO INFORMED ME THAT AN APPEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED LONG BACK AND THEREFORE, PRESENTLY THE APPEAL IS BEING FILED TO THE ITAT ON 18/04/2019 WITH A P RAYER FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. 7. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WAS PASSED ON 18/10/2018 AND WAS SERVED ON 09/11/2018. WHEN I CONSULTED MR. BHASKAR REDDY, I WAS INFORMED THAT AN APPEAL TO THE ITAT IS TO BE FILED WITH A PRAYER FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE APP EAL IS PRESENTLY FILED ON 18/04/2019 WITH A DELAY OF 100 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 O F 100 DAYS AND FOR A PROPER ADJUDICATION OF THE MATTER ON MERITS AS THE INCOME FROM WINES I AM INFORMED HAS BEEN ESTIMATED FAR BEYOND THE NORMAL RANGE.. 3 5 . 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 MERIT IN HIS SUBMISSIONS BECAUSE THE REASONS ADDUCED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE EVASIVE AND NOT APPROPRIATE . HOWEVER, C ONSIDERING THE FINANCIAL POSITION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE NATURE OF THE ADDITION MADE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I HEREBY CONDONE THE DELAY IN THE FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6 . AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE ME THAT THE LD. CIT (A) DID NOT CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE HIM AND HAS PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. 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 OF BEING HEARD . LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, V EHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND ARGUED THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF 335 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) . THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY STATED THAT HE WAS HOSPITALIZED DUE TO HIS ILLNESS WHICH P REVENTED HIM IN FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD WITHOUT FURNISHING ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS STAND. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON THE GIVEN DATE OF HEARING, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD . CIT (A). U NDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. 4 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 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. 7 . 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. IT IS A APPARENT THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM OF ILLNESS DUE TO WHICH DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL HAD OCCURRED . MOREO VER, ON THE DATE OF HEARING NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A). THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT (A) WAS LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEA L EX - PARTE. IN THIS SITUATION, I DO NOT FIND MUCH STRENGTH IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE PRAYER OF THE LD. AR AND THE MEAGRE FINANCIAL RESOURCE OF THE ASSESSEE , IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT (A) FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION . AT THE SAME BREATH, I ALSO HEREBY CAUTION THE ASSESSEE 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 AC CORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON THE RECORD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 8 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. 5 PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH MARCH, 2020. SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 19 TH MARCH, 2020. OKK COPY TO: - 1) SRI MUDIU VIJAY KUMAR C/O. M/S. SEKHAR & CO., 133/4, RP ROAD, SECUNDERABAD 500003. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, ANANTAPUR. 3) THE CIT(A) , KURNOOL. 4) THE PR. CIT, KURNOOL. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE