SRIDEVI MADALA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual filed her original return of income u/s. 139(1) of the I.T.Act 1961 for AY 2013-14 on 24.07.2013, declaring a total income of Rs.4,38,320/-. A search & seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Act was conducted on 04.01.2018 in the case of Shri Chennamaneni Vamsheedhar, Executive Director of M/s. Kaveri Seed Company Limited, Hyderabad. During the course of search, certain documents were found and seized in the residential premises of Shri Chennamaneni Vamsheedhar, vide Annexure- A/CV/RES/01. As the information contained in the seized document relates to the assessee, requisite information along with copies of seized documents, was forwarded to the office of the 3 Smt. Sridevi Madala DCIT Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad. This office assumed jurisdiction over the assessee vide centralization order u/s. 127 of the I.T.act in F.No.ITBA/COM/F/17/2020-21/1030592642(1) dated 12.02.2021 passed by the Pr.CIT-2, Hyderabad. After recording a satisfaction note as per the amended provisions of section 153C of the Act, a notice u/s.153C was issued to the assessee on 30.11.2021 through ITBA portal. As there was no compliance to the said notice, further notice u/s 142(1) dated 03.12.2021 was issued to the assessee through ITBA portal affording another opportunity to file the return of income in response to the notice u/s 153C and also to furnish certain information in connection with pending assessment proceedings. However, no reply to the said notice or any information was filed. Nevertheless, a final opportunity was again given to the assessee vide show cause notice dated 10.12.2021. In spite of giving adequate opportunities, the assessee has neither filed return of income nor submitted any information as called for. Based on the facts and circumstances and the information available on record, the Assessing Officer had made the additions in the hands of the assessee.

Feeling aggrieved by order of ld.CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us for the grounds mentioned hereinabove.

At the outset, it was the contention of the ld.AR that the assessee is an old lady and, therefore, is not able to respond in the short time provided by the ld.CIT(A). It was further contention of the ld.AR that in the present case, the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. It was submitted that the presence of incriminating documents pertaining to the said assessment year is essential, however, in most of the cases, there is no incriminating document found during the course of the search pertaining to the said assessment year. Therefore, it was the submission of the ld.AR that the appeals of the assessee are required to be allowed.

Per contra, the ld.DR had submitted that the assessee has not proved her case before the ld.CIT(A) whether the additions were made on the basis of incriminating material or not is a question of fact and can only be decided by the Assessing Officer / ld.CIT(A) after verifying the assessment folder and search record.

We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material available on record. In the present case, as mentioned in Para 6.1 of the order of ld.CIT(A), despite the grant of 12 opportunities, the assessee failed to participate in the hearing and the case was adjourned for one reason or the other on account of non-cooperation of the assessee. As the assessee being a senior citizen and house-wife, therefore, we deem it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to 5 Smt. Sridevi Madala prove her case before the ld.CIT(A) and hence, we remand back the matter to the file of ld.CIT(A) with the following directions :

In the result, the appeal of assessee in is allowed for statistical purposes.

Now coming to the remaining appeals i.e. to 411/Hyd/2022, which are identical to the facts and issues raised in ITA 406/Hyd/2022, our decision in ITA No.406/Hyd/2022 would apply mutatis mutandis. Accordingly, these appeals are also allowed for statistical purposes.

To sum up, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.