G SRINIVAS, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 7(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1157/HYD/2015Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 November 2020AY 2004-054 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It also remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, directing that the assessee be given a fair opportunity to present their case and relevant materials.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a significant delay of 485 days, attributing it to misplaced documents. The original assessment and the CIT(A) order were passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the ex-parte assessment order should be set aside for a fresh consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” : HYDERABAD

Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH

This is assessee’s appeal for the AY.2004-05, directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–18, Mumbai, dated 03-02-2014.

2.

The case was taken up for hearing on 17-11-2020 through video conferencing and both the parties were heard.

3.

This appeal is filed with a delay of 485 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, stating that the appeal could not be filed in time as the relevant papers have been misplaced by one of his staff and could be traced only on 14-09-2015, resulting in the delay of 485 days. It is submitted that the order of the CIT(A) is from Mumbai and since the assessee was not aware of the proceedings pending before the CIT(A), none appeared for assessee and therefore, ex-parte order has been passed. It is also submitted that the agricultural income of the assessee has been brought to tax and therefore, the assessee has a case on merits and therefore the delay should be condoned and assessee should be given an opportunity to present his case again. Thus, he prayed for condonation of delay and a remand of the issue back to the file of AO for re-consideration in accordance with law.

4.

Ld.DR was also heard, who opposed condonation of delay and also objected to the remand of the issue to the file of AO.

5.

Having regard to the rival contentions and material on record, we are convinced with the reasons given by the assessee for the delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, the delay is condoned.

5.1. As far as the merits of the addition are concerned, we find that the AO has given a number of notices to the assessee, and only on one occasion, Ld.AR of the assessee appeared before the AO, but no information was filed before the AO, due to which, the AO completed the assessment ex-parte on the basis of material available with him.

5.2. Ld.Counsel for the assessee has submitted that if given an opportunity, the assessee will produce all the relevant details before the AO. Since the order of the CIT(A) is also an ex-parte order and the assessment order is passed u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, we deem it fit and proper to remit the issue to the file of AO with a direction to dispose-of the appeal afresh in accordance with law. Needless to mention that assessee shall be given a fair opportunity of hearing. The assessee is also directed to produce all the relevant material before the AO and co-operate with him for early completion of assessment.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 20th November, 2020

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →