BAL REDDY KANDUNURI,ADILABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Brief facts of the case are that consequent to the seizure of huge amount from the assessee on 3/12/2018 Election Flying Squad team from Mancherial, warrant under section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) was executed and the assessee submitted the return of income in response to the notice issued under section 153A of the Act. Assessment was completed by orders dated 25/9/2021 by making addition on account of unexplained investment/deposits for all these years.

Aggrieved by such an action of the learned Assessing Officer, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), but in spite of granting several opportunities, failed to avail the same to get the matters disposed of on merits. Having given a long rope of nine adjournments, Ld. CIT(A) formed an opinion that the assessee was not really interested in pursuing the appeals and only interested in seeking adjournments. Ld. CIT(A), therefore, proceeded with the matter ex-parte and while referring to the material available on record he dismissed the appeal.

Assessee is therefore, before us in these appeals mainly contending that many of the notices were not served on the assessee and on four occasions the Ld. CIT(A) thought it fit to grant adjournment to the assessee because the reason for seeking adjournment was accepted to be a reasonable one. According to the Ld. AR due to the health reasons in the post Covid period the assessee could not prosecute the appeal is in an effective way.

Ld. AR submitted that given an opportunity the assessee is now ready to prosecute the appeals diligently and to get the appeals disposed of on merits before the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that though the Ld. CIT(A) referred to the facts of the case basing on the material available before him, the fact remains that the assessee could not submit the material relevant to the appeals and to put forth his case in an effective way.

Per contra, Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) was very lenient in granting about a dozen adjournments in a span of nine months, and the assessee cannot take advantage of his own conduct in not cooperating with the Ld. CIT(A) to dispose of the appeals on merit. He is very vehement in submitting that no lenient view can be taken in this matter and, if for any reason, the Bench takes a view that an opportunity may be granted to the assessee, then such an opportunity could be conditioned with the assessee paying heavy costs.

We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. It is an undeniable fact that between 1/3/2022 and 14/12/2022, the assessee had nine months and nine adjournments were granted to the assessee. Except stating the health reasons, the assessee did not produce any material whatsoever in support thereof.

No doubt, all the endeavour of the authorities is to assess the correct tax liability of the assessee but in that process, the proceedings cannot be dragged on to unreasonable lengths. It’s not the only case of the assessee that the authorities will be dealing with and their time is also precious. In an attempt to balance between affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee and to see that compliance with the procedure is secured, we are of the considered opinion that fastening the assessee with costs will remedy the situation. With this view of the matter, we are inclined to set aside the impugned orders and restore the appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) will entertain the appeals on the assessee producing the proof of remitting costs of Rs. 10,000/-, namely, @ Rs. 2,000/- in each of the appeals to the credit of the Prime Minister’s relief fund, on or before 1/4/2023. On that, Ld. CIT(A) will afford an opportunity to the assessee and take a view according to law. We make it amply clear to the assessee that this is the last opportunity afforded to him and if for any reason, the assessee fails to avail this opportunity, the Ld. CIT(A) is at liberty to proceed according to law. All these appeals are, accordingly, are treated as allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purpose.