SRI SAI VISHWAS INDUSTRIES,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 161/HYD/2020Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 April 2021AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay and, noting that the assessee was ex parte before the lower authorities, restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. The assessee will be given a fair opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was delayed by 68 days. The Assessing Officer made a best judgment assessment, adding Rs. 31,95,500/- as unexplained cash credits, as the assessee did not appear. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-appearance.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer after being ex parte before lower authorities. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘SMC’ BENCH : Hyderabad

Before: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

Hearing: 19/04/2021Pronounced: 22/04/2021

Date of Hearing : 19/04/2021 Date of Pronouncement : 22/04/2021 O R D E R This is assessee’s appeal against the order of CIT(A)-4, Hyderabad dated 30.09.2019 relating to A.Y. 2011-12. This appeal was taken up for hearing through Video Conference on 19.04.2021 and both the parties were heard.

At the outset, it is seen that there is a delay of 68 days in filing of the appeal and the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating that the assessee has filed appeal before the CIT(A) and had sought for an adjournment to file details for the delay. However, the CIT(A), without considering the adjournment application, dismissed the appeal mentioning that none appeared for assessee. It is submitted that the delay is due to the fact that old records are not traceable readily as the staff had left the organisation as business is suspended and it took time to find out relevant ./2020 Sri Sai Vishwas Industries. A.Y. 2011-12 records from the old stock and it was therefore requested that the delay may be condoned.

Ld.D.R. opposed the condonation of delay.

However, being satisfied with the reasons given in the application, the delay is condoned.

2.

As regards merits of the case is concerned, I find that the assessee firm originally filed its return of income for A.Y 2011-12 on 11.10.2011 declaring total income of Rs.3,75,001/-. The return was initially processed u/s 143(1) and later on reopened by issuance of a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The A.O. observed that the assessee did not appear in spite of several opportunities given and since the case is becoming time barred on 31.12.2018, he completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act on the basis of best judgement assessment. The AO found that there are cash credits of Rs.31,95,500/-. He treated the same as unexplained cash credits and brought it to tax. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), but none appeared before the CIT(A) and therefore he dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of A.O.

3.

Assessee is in second appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal.

1.

The Ld. CIT(A)-4, Hyderabad has erred in law and facts of the case and in law.

2. The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.31,95,500/- and this amount is receipts out of sales made by the appellant, which were treated as unexplained credits by the AO.

3. The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of the carried forward loss of Rs.3,28,240/- made by the AO and the carried forward loss claimed may be allowed.

4. To file any other ground not filed earlier or to modify the grounds already filed with the permission of Hon’ble Member. 2 ./2020 Sri Sai Vishwas Industries. A.Y. 2011-12 3.1. Inspite of service of notice by RPAD to assessee, none appeared on behalf of assessee. However, on going through the records, I find that the assessee’s case is ex parte both before the AO as well as before the CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice and to give assessee an opportunity of hearing, I deem it fit and proper to restore the issue back to the file of the A.O. for re-consideration of the issue denovo in accordance with law. Needless to mention that assessee shall be given a fair opportunity of hearing.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →