Okkanti Srinivasa Rao, Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(4), Hyderabad

ITA 955/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4625 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: V SIVA KUMAR
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B - SMC, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.955/HYD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014 - 15 OKKANTI SRINIVASA RAO, HYDERABAD. PAN: AASPO 4781 P VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11(4), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI V. SIVA KUMAR REVENUE BY: SRI RAJAT MITRA, DR DATE OF HEARING: 18/11/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18/11/2019 ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 1, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO. 0050/17 - 18/ITO, WARD - 11(4), HYD/CIT(A) - 1/HYD/2018 - 19, DATED 08/02/2019 PASSED U/S. 271(1)(C) R.W.S 2 5 0(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2014 - 15. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN HI S APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS. 3,11,060 LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) BY THE A.O. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS, WHICH WAS SPECIFICALLY RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY FOR THE REASON THAT THE DETAILS OF APPEAL AGAINST THE QUANTUM DEMAND ARE NOT AVAILABLE, S INCE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE INDEPENDENT OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2 5. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THAT, DUE TO NON - STRIKING OFF OF THE PARTICULAR LIMB OF SECTION 271(1)(C) IN THE NOTICE U/S. 274, WOULD RESULT IN QUASHING OF PENALTY PROCEED INGS. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THAT A SINGLE ADDITION IN THE ASSESSMENT, WOULD NOT RESULT IN CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, BOTH. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THAT, BOTH THE LIMBS O F SECTION 271(1)(C) ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE AND CANNOT EXIST SIMULTANEOUSLY, ESPECIALLY FOR A SINGLE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT. 8. ANY OTHER GROUND OR GROUNDS THAT MAY BE RAISED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WITH THE PRIOR PERMISSION FROM THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL. 3. 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 THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE MATTER M AY 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 SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES HAD BEEN P ROVIDED 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 THE LD. CIT (A) HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO PASS EX - PARTE ORDER BASED ON THE MATERIAL S AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HENCE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS IN ORDER AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 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 3 THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR. THE LD. CIT (A) HAD POSTED THE CASE ON SIX OCCASIONS I.E., 05/04/ 2018, 15/05/2018, 17/07/2018, 25/09/2018, 23/10/2018 AND FINALLY ON 24/01/2019 . HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE THE CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE DATES OF HEARING. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT (A) WAS LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL 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. CIT (A) IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERITS BY PROVIDING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. AT THE SAME BREATH, I ALSO HE REBY 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 ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON THE RECORD. IT IS ORDERED AC CORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH NOVEMBER, 2019. SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 18 TH NOVEMBER , 2019 4 OKK COPY TO: - 1) OKKANTI SRINIVASA RAO, PLOT NO.71, H.NO. 49 - 285/2, PADMA NAGAR, PHASE - 1, CHINTAL, BUTBULLAPUR MANDAL, HYDERABAD - 54. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11(4), HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT(A) - 1, HYDERABAD 4) THE PR. CIT - 5, HYDERABAD 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE