Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “SMC”, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
Assessment Year:2016-17 Prashanth Kumar Gurram, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-7(1), PAN: AGKPG 6376 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad Revenue by: Shri D.J. Prabhakar Rao, DR Date of hearing: 10/02/2021 Date of pronouncement: 19/04/2021 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.:
Both the captioned appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of the Ld. CIT (A)-3, Hyderabad in appeal Nos. 10175 & 10176/2019-20/B3/CIT(A)-3, dated 04/09/2020 passed U/s. 143(3), 271(1)(c) r.w.s U/s. 250(6) of the Act for the AY: 2016-17.
In quantum appeal ( ), the assessee has raised two grounds however, the crux of the issue is that:
“The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,95,000/- made by the ld. AO treating it as unexplained investment U/s. 68 of the Act.”
In penalty appeal (ITA No. 576/Hyd/2020), the assessee has raised three grounds however, the crux of the issue is that:
“The ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 1,52,955/- levied by the Ld. AO invoking the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act.”
At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before me that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without providing proper opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Ld. AR further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. Ld. AR also submitted that while making the addition of Rs. 4,95,000/- U/s. 69 of the Act, the Ld. A.O. did not consider the submissions of the assessee. It was therefore pleaded that the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to pursue his case before the Ld. Revenue Authorities. Ld. DR on the other hand objected 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). Ld. DR further submitted that there was an inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the assessee has not filed any condonation petition stating the reasons for the belated submission of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 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 orders passed by the Ld. Revenue Authorities do not call for any interference and appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.
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. A.O. completed the assessment U/s. 143(3) of the Act making an addition of Rs. 4,95,000/- considering the same as unexplained income. On appeal, before the Ld. CIT(A) none appeared on behalf of the assessee on the given dates of hearing. Moreover, there is a long delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) for which the assessee had also not filed a petition seeking condonation of delay stating the reasons. Hence, the Ld. CIT (A) was left with no other option except to dismiss the appeal of the assessee. In this situation, I do not find much strength in the arguments advanced by the ld. AR.
However, considering the prayer and the submissions of the Ld. AR, the merger financial resource of the assessee and the nature of issues involved in the appeal, in the interest of justice, I hereby condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of Ld. AO for de-novo consideration thereby providing one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate before the Ld. Revenue Authorities in their proceedings failing which the Ld. Revenue Authorities shall be at liberty to pass appropriate Orders in accordance with law and merits based on the materials on the record. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove.
The core issue involved in this appeal is the levy of penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since the quantum appeal of the assessee is remitted back to the file of the Ld. A.O. for de-novo consideration, this appeal is also remitted back to the file of the Ld. A.O. to adjudicate the appeal afresh based on the outcome of the quantum appeal of the assessee. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposed as indicated herein above.
Pronounced in the open Court on 19th April, 2021.