Gurijala Srinivas Goud, Hyderabad V. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Hyderabad

ITA 963/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 69744 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-06-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A SITARAMA RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: P RAVI SESHAGIRI RAO

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.963/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 MR. GURIJALA SRINIVAS GOUD RAMACHANDRAPURAM, MEDAK DISTRICT. PAN AKEPG1515C VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : MR. P. RAVISESHAGIRI RAO FOR REVENUE : MR. A. SITARAMA RAO DATE OF HEARING : 2 2 .0 9 .2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 .09.2016 ORDER PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A)-I, HYDERABAD AND IT PERTAINS TO THE A.Y. 2009-2010. 2. THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FROM TIME TO TIME RIGHT FRO M 2013 ONWARDS AND IN FACT ON 13.10.2014, AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE, THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 23.02.2015 AS LAST OPPORTUNITY AND DESPITE SUCH LAST OPPORTUNITY AND AWA RDING OF COST THEREOF, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR, EITHER ON THE GROUND THAT HE WAS PROCEEDING ON PILGRIMAGE TO TIRUPATI OR THE COUNSEL WAS YET TO GATHER COPY OF PURCHASE DEED OF THE AGRICUL TURAL LAND ETC., AND FINALLY THE CASE WAS POSTED FOR HEARING ON 2 2.09.2016 ON WHICH DATE SHRI P. RAVISESHAGIRI RAO APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT SHRI S. RAMA RAO, COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE SEEKS TO WITHDRAW HIS VAKALAT AND MESSAGE WA S ALREADY 2 ITA.NO.963/HYD/2013 MR. GIRIJALA SRINIVAS GOUD, RAMACHANDRAPURAM, MEDAK DISTRICT. SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BUT TILL DATE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RE SPONDED. SHRI P. RAVISESHAGIRI RAO SUBMITTED THAT HE IS REPRESE NTING ON BEHALF OF SHRI S. RAMA RAO AND HE IS PREPARED TO MAK E A STATEMENT THAT SHRI S. RAMA RAO WOULD LIKE TO WITHDRAW HI S POWER OF ATTORNEY AND ALSO SUBMITTED THAT INFORMATION WAS ALREADY PASSED-ON TO THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, PROC EED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX-PARTE, QUA THE ASSESSEE, SI NCE EXCEPT THE COUNSEL WHO SEEKS TO WITHDRAW HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY, NO NE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. AT THE OUTSET, IT MAY BE NOTICED THAT THE APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 136 DAYS. ASSESSEE FILED PETITION FOR CONDO NATION OF DELAY ALONG WITH AN AFFIDAVIT. IN THE PETITION IT WAS STA TED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAVING BEEN COMMUNICATED TO THE AS SESSEE ON 27.11.2012. THE APPEAL OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN FILED BEFO RE THE END OF JANUARY, 2012 WHEREAS THE APPEAL WAS FILED ON 11.06. 2013 ON ACCOUNT OF HIS ILL-HEALTH. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AT THE END OF JANUARY, 2013 THE ASSESSEE SUFFERED SERIOUS SET BACK IN HIS HEALTH DUE TO ACUTE DIABETICS. SINCE THE CHARTERED ACC OUNTANT TO WHOM THE MATTER WAS ENTRUSTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(A ) DID NOT REPRESENT BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE CONTEMPLA TED TO ENGAGE ANOTHER COUNSEL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BUT IN THE M EANTIME, HE FELL SICK AND ADVISED COMPLETE BED REST AND HE WA S CONFINED TO HOME TILL THE END OF MAY, 2013 AND THEREAFTER, APPEAL WAS FILED ON 11.06.2013 RESULTING IN A DELAY OF 136 DAYS. SINCE I T WAS A VAGUE EXPLANATION, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WAS CA LLED-UPON TO FURNISH THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE AND THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY BETWEEN THE CONCERNED DATES I.E., MAY TO 11 TH JUNE, 2013. HOWEVER, NO SUCH DETAILS COULD BE FILED TILL THE DATE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DELAY IN FILI NG THE 3 ITA.NO.963/HYD/2013 MR. GIRIJALA SRINIVAS GOUD, RAMACHANDRAPURAM, MEDAK DISTRICT. APPEAL IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE AND THEREF ORE, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL AS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 4. EVEN OTHERWISE, AS PER RULE 18(6) OF THE APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL RULES, ANY DOCUMENT WHICH WAS FILED BY THE A SSESSEE CAN BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AS PART OF THE RECORD ON LY WHEN THEY WERE REFERRED TO OR RELIED UPON BY THE PARTIES WHE REAS IN THE INSTANT CASE, NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THEREF ORE, WE CANNOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. SANS THE PAPER BOOK THERE IS NOTHING ON RECO RD TO SUPPORT THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. IN OTHERWORDS, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITY AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE CAPITAL GAINS DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. AT ANY RATE, SINCE THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS UN-ADMITTED ON THE GRO UND THAT THE APPEAL IS BARRED BY LIMITATION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY NEED TO DISCUSS THE MERITS OF THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22.09.2016. SD/- SD/- (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) (D.MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. VICE PRESIDENT HYDERABAD, DATED 22 ND SEPTEMBER, 2016 VBP/- 4 ITA.NO.963/HYD/2013 MR. GIRIJALA SRINIVAS GOUD, RAMACHANDRAPURAM, MEDAK DISTRICT. COPY TO: 1. MR. GIRIJALA SRINIVAS GOUD, 12-124, SRINIVAS NAG AR COLONY, RAMACHANDRAPURAM, MEDAK DISTRICT. C/O. SHRI S. RAMA R AO, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO.102, SHRIYAS ELEGANCE, H.NO.3-6-64 3, STREET NO.9, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD 500 029. 2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRC LE-1, HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(A)-I, HYDERABAD. 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ITAT, A BENCH, HYDERAB AD 6. GUARD FILE.