Laxman Goud Donkani, Ranga Reddy V. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-9(1), Hyderabad

ITA 830/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4864 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-01-2020
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 04-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MURALI MOHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: M V ANIL KUMAR
• Section: 68; 144

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B , HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 830 /HYD/20 18 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 14 - 15 SRI LAXMAN GOUD DONKANI R.R. DISTRICT. PAN: AGWPD 9571 H VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 9(1), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI M.V. ANIL KUMAR REVENUE BY: SRI MURALI MOHAN, DR DATE OF HEARING: 16/01/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18 /02/2020 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 7, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO.0017/CIT(A) - 7/2017 - 18, DATED 12/02/2018 PASSED U/S. 144 R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2014 - 15. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL: 1. YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONDONED THE DELAY AND ADMITTED THE APPEAL. 2. YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY AND MERIT OF THE CASE, OUGHT TO HAVE ADJUDICATED ON MERITS. 2 3. YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACT OF THE CASE, THEREFORE THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,90,88,986/ - IS BAD IN LAW. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE A.O. ER RED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE IN ADDITION OF RS. 2,90,88,986 U/S. 68 OF THE ACT IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE SAME WAS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS AND MAJORITY OF THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED THROUGH BANK, THE ADDITION MAY BE DELETED. 5. YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT T HE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN SOME TIME / OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT THE CONFIRMATION LETTER AND DETAILS OF LOAN CREDITORS AND OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION U/S. 68. 6. YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT ON THE PERUSAL OF THE BANK STATEMENTS, IT IS OBSERVED T HAT MAJORITY OF THE AMOUNT IS RECEIVED FROM SOCIETY AND PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WHO ARE REGULAR IN FILING THE RETURN, THE ADDITION U/S. 68 IS NOT WARRANTED. 3 . AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER WITHOUT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT 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 TO PURSUE THE APPEAL . LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND ARGUED BY STATING THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITIES HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD, HOWEVER, ON THE GIVEN DATES OF HEARING, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE SITUATION THE LD. CIT (A) HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO PASS EX - PARTE ORDER ON MERITS BASED ON THE MATE RIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HENCE, IT WAS PLEADED , THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS APPROPRIATE AND THEREFORE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 3 3 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. ON EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR. F ROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAD POSTED THE APPEAL ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GIVEN DAT ES OF HEARING. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT (A) WAS LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL EX - PARTE . IN THIS SITUATION, WE DO NOT FIND MUCH STRENGTH IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE PRAYER OF THE LD. AR, IN TH E INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE 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, WE ALSO HEREBY CAUTION THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTLY C O - 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. 4 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH FEBRUARY, 2020 . SD/ - SD/ - (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 4 HYDERABAD, DATED: 18 TH FEBRUARY, 2020 OKK COPY TO: - 1) SRI LAXMAN GOUD DONKANI C/O. M. ANANDAM & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 7A, SURYA TOWERS, S.P. ROAD, SECUNDERABAD. 2) ACIT, CIRCLE - 9(1), HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT(A) - 7 , HYDERABAD 4) THE PR. CIT - 7 , HYDERABAD 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE