Mamidyala Gangaram, Nizamabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Nizamabad

ITA 727/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7330 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-12-2019
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NILANJAN DEY
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• 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. 727/HYD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014 - 15 MAMIDYLA GANGARAM, NIZAMABAD. PAN: AQIPM 6061 F VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, NIZAMABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI A.V. RAGHURAM REVENUE BY: SRI NILANJAN DEY, DR DATE OF HEARING: 16/12/ 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20 /01/2020 ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 5, HYDERABAD DATED 24/01/2018 IN APPEAL NO. 0484/2016 - 17/CIT(A) - 5 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2014 - 15. 2. THE ASSESSE E HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) - 5, HYDERABAD IS UNJUSTIFIED IN MAKING AN EX - PARTE ORDER, ON THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE APPELLANT, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. HE OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THAT THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SENT AN E - MAIL ON 9/9/2017 TO ADJOURN THE HEARING THAT WAS POSTED ON 8/9/2017, SINCE HIS MOTHER WAS HOSPITALIZED. LATER SHE SUCCUMBED TO SERIOUS ILLNESS AND EXPIRED. THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON - COMPLIANCE AND THE SAME SHOU LD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LD. APPELLATE OFFICER. 2 2. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THAT THE APPELLANT MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE SAME WERE AUDITED AND RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ALONG WITH THE TAX AUDIT REPORT. THE RESULTS AS DECLA RED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. 3. THE LD APPELLATE AUTHORITY OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN BANK STATEMENTS WITH REFERENCE TO THE BANK STATEMENT IS RECONCILABLE AND THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,47,503/ - IS UNSUSTAINABLE. HE OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THAT THE DIFFERENCE RECONCILED WAS IN THE FORM OF LICENCE FEES PAID IN ADVANCE AND THAT APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET AT RS. 10,50,000/ - . THE CHEQUES ISSUED THERE FOR WERE NOT PRESENTED TO THE BANK AS ON 31/3/2014 AND THUS, THE DIFFERENCE WAS RECONCILED. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SU BMITTED BEFORE US 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 THE LD. AO HAD ALSO NOT GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. IT WAS THEREF ORE PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD AO SO THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ABLE TO PRESENT ALL THE REQUISITE DETAILS REQUIRED BY THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES . 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). IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES , THE LD. CIT (A) HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO PASS EX - PARTE ORDER ON MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HENCE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3 LD. CIT(A) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMI SSED. 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 CASE ON FOUR OCCASIONS I.E., 08/09/2017, 07/11/2017, 21/12/2017 AND FINALLY ON 22/01/2018. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON THE ABOVEMENTIONED DATES OF HEARING. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT (A) WAS LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO ADJUDICATE THE AP PEAL 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, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. AO IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL AFRESH BY PROVIDING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. I ALSO DRAW ATTENTION OF THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE MARGIN OF PROFIT OFFERED BY THE STATE TRADING AUTHORITIES TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SELLING TH E INDIAN MANUFACTURED LIQUOR AND ALSO THE PROVISIONS UNDER THE ACT RELATING TO MANDATORY MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S AND THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR COMPUTING PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. AT THE SAME BREATH, I ALSO HEREBY CAUTIO N THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTLY CO - OPERATE BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THEIR PROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES SHALL BE AT 4 LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON THE RECORD. I T IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH JANUARY, 2020. SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 20 TH JANUARY, 2020. OKK COPY TO: - 1) MAMIDYALA GANGARAM C/O. C. SAI PRASAD, M.COM., LL.B., H.NO.5 - 6 - 64, DWARAKANAGAR, NIZAMABAD 50 002. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, NIZAMABAD - 503002. 3) THE CIT(A) - 5, HYDERABAD 4) THE PR. CIT - 5,HYDERABAD 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE