MYLARAM BHOOMAIAH,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1160/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 April 2021AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the prayer for one more opportunity, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 170 days due to illness. The Assessing Officer (AO) and CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the AO and CIT(A) were justified, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 250,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “A-SMC”, HYDERABAD

For Appellant: Shri A. Sai Ram
For Respondent: Shri B. Balakrishna, DR
Hearing: 15/03/2021Pronounced: 20/04/2021

ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Hyderabad in appeal No.10775/16-17/ITO, Ward- 13(1)/CIT(A)-4/Hyd/18-19, dated 30/11/2018 passed U/s. 144 r.w.s 147 and U/s. 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2011-12.

2.

The assessee has raised four grounds in his appeal and they are extracted herein below for reference:-

1.

“1. The order of the learned Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(1), Hyderabad is unsustainable in law and on facts of the case. 2. Income Tax Office, Ward-13(1), Hyderabad is not justified in rejecting the documents and explanations for the sources for cash deposit with State Bank of Hyderabad. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions made by A.O. of Rs. 18,00,000/- by applying the provisions under section 68 of the Act.

4. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing the appellant prays for relief.”

2. At the outset, Ld. AR submitted before us that there is a delay of 170 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee had filed an application seeking condonation of delay wherein the reasons for filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit was explained. For reference, the relevant portion from the affidavit is extracted herein below: - “ …….. 2 That the appellant obtained certified copy of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on 30/11/2018 from his counsel but due to illness and other reason could not file appeal before ITAT on time.

3. That there is a delay of 170 days in filing the previous appeal which is defective due to some errors in filing the application which is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the appellant as details in the present application.

4.

That there are sufficient and plausible reasons for the acceptance of the present application and to condone the delay in filing the appeal. ….. ……..”

3.

On perusal of the affidavit filed by the assessee, it appears that the reason for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was due to illness the assessee. Therefore in the interest of justice, I hereby condone the delay of 170 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits.

4. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before us that the Ld. A.O. as well as the Ld.CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders U/s. 144 r.w.s 147 & 250 of the Act respectively and without affording 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 his Representative appeared before the Ld. A.O as well as before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore the Ld. Revenue Authorities had no other option but to pass 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.

5.

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). Therefore, the Ld. Revenue Authorities were left with no other option except to adjudicate the appeal based on the material available on record. In this situation, I do not find much strength in the arguments advanced by the ld. AR. However, considering the issues involved in the appeal as well as the prayer of the Ld. AR, in the interest of justice, I hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld. A.O. 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 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 order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials on the record. It is ordered accordingly.

6.

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

Pronounced in the open Court on 20th April, 2021.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →