Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “SMC”, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “SMC”, HYDERABAD (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sri Kandukuri Sudhakar Vs. ACIT, Reddy, Circle-15(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN: AAQPK 3382 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Surya Kumar for G. Sudhakar Rao Revenue by: Shri Sitarama Rao Akunuru Date of hearing: 11/01/2021 Date of pronouncement: 21/01/2021 ORDER
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-7, Hyderabad in appeal No. 027/CIT(A)-7/2018-19, dated 11-06- 2019 passed U/s. 143 (3) r.w.s 147 and U/s. 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2015-16.
2. The assessee has raised five grounds in its appeal and they are extracted herein below for reference:-
“1. The appeal is instituted against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Hyderabad dated 11/06/2019.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) order is contrary to law and facts of the case and therefore it may be treated as an order without any authority of law.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground that the averments made by the appellant in the affidavit was not substantiated by evidence and dismissed the appeal treating it as a fit case for not condoning the delay.
The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the stand taken by the CIT(A) in case of the same assessees in respect of penalty proceedings.
Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) order is prejudicial to the laws of natural justices and therefore the appellant prays that the Hon’ble ITAT to kindly condone the delay and direct the CIT(A) to decide the case on question of law as the order of the A.O. is contrary to both law and facts and prejudicial to the interest of justice.
6. The appellant craves to add to / alter / amend / substituted / omit and modify all or any of these grounds.
In view of these and other grounds which may be produced during the hearing of appeal the appeal may be allowed and justice rendered.”
At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before me that there is a delay of 03 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Ld. AR further submitted that because of the Clerk’s oversight at Ld. Counsel’s office the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated time and since the delay in filing the appeal is not attributable to the assessee, the delay may be condoned and the case may be adjudicated on merits.
After hearing the submissions of the Ld. AR, I find that the reason for the delay of 03 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is because of the oversight of the staff in the Auditor’s office and not due to the assessee. Therefore in the interest of Justice I hereby condone the delay of 03 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits.
4. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR submitted before me that there was a delay of 148 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. AR further submitted that on 28/05/2018 though the assessee had filed an affidavit before the Ld. CIT(A) and explained the reasons for delay, the Ld. CIT(A) did not consider the assessee’s submissions for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal. It was therefore pleaded that the deley in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) may be condoned and the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld CIT (A) in order to provide one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard on merits. Ld.DR, on the other hand, vehemently opposed to the submissions of the Ld. AR and argued stating that the onus is on the assessee to produce evidence for the averments made in the affidavit seeking condonation of delay which the assessee had not complied. The Ld.DR. further argued stating that in the absence of any such evidence, the Ld. CIT(A) was just in not condoning the delay and dismissing the appeal of the assessee. It was therefore pleaded that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) does 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) had given sufficient opportunities to the assessee to explain the reasons for the delay and furnish evidence for the same. Since, the assessee could not convincingly explain the reasons for delay in filing the appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) was left with no other option except to dismiss the appeal. In this situation, I do not find much strength in the arguments advanced by the ld. AR. However, considering the prayer of the Ld. AR before us that the delay was not caused intentionally or negligently as he was seeking advice from various Counsels as per the insistence of his family members due to which the delay had occurred, 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. CIT (A) 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. CIT (A) in the proceedings failing which the Ld. CIT (A) 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.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove.
Pronounced in the open Court on 21st January, 2021.