ARUNA POLEMONI ,SHAMSHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2) , HYDERABAD

The assessee has raised six grounds in her appeal and they are extracted herein below for reference:- “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the order U/s. 144 r.w.s 147 of the IT Act is arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to give proper opportunity to represent the appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the property in adverse position was sold for the prevailing

At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that there is delay of 10 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal beyond the prescribed time limit. In this regard, Ld. AR submitted that since he was out of station on urgent personal work during the period, the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated time. It was therefore pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal may kindly be condoned.

On perusal of the condonation petition submitted by the Ld. AR, I find that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable and justifiable reason which led to the delay of 10 days in filing his appeal before the Tribunal i.e., due to non-availability of the Ld. AR during the relevant period. Therefore, since the delay in filing the appeal is not attributable to the assessee, in the interest of justice, I hereby condone the delay of 10 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits.

At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before me stating that the Ld. CIT (A) has passed ex-parte order without providing proper opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Ld. AR further submitted that the Ld. A.O. had also passed ex-parte order U/s. 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act and the assessee was not afforded proper opportunity of being heard. It was therefore pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld A.O. in order to provide one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Ld. DR, on the other hand, vehemently opposed 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 her Representative appeared before the Ld. A.O. as well as the Ld. CIT (A). Therefore the Ld. Revenue Authorities had no other option but to pass ex-parte orders 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.

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. CIT (A) and the Ld. A.O. had posted the case on several occasions. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the Ld.AO as well as before the Ld. CIT(A) on the dates of hearing. Therefore, the Ld. Revenue Authorities were left with no other option except to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte. In

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove.