Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “B-SMC”, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B-SMC”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Palagiri Bawaji, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tirupati. Ward-1(1), PAN: BXOPP 4039 G Tirupati. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri K.A. Sai Prasad Revenue by: Sri Rajat Mitra, DR Date of hearing: 21/11/2019 Date of pronouncement: 17/01/2020 ORDER
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Tirupati in appeal No. 10248/2016-17/CIT(A)/TPT, dated 28/02/2019 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2014-15.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in his appeal:
“1. The order of the Learned First Appellate Authority is not correct either in law or on facts and in both.
The Learned First Appellate Authority is not justified in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
3. The Ld. First Appellate Authority is not justified in confirming the addition of commission income amounting to Rs. 12,87,879/-.
The Ld. First Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the fact that the commission income is part of the sales admitted in the revised return of income filed on 17/7/2016 and hence no separate addition is warranted.
The appellant craves leave to add or amend or alter any of the grounds at the time of hearing of appeal.”
At the outset, it is observed from the record that there is a delay of 3 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Considering the nature of petty business, the assessee is engaged in and the delay being of only three days, in the interest of justice, I hereby condone the delay and proceed to hear the appeal on merits.
4. At the outset, Ld. AR submitted before us that the Ld. CIT(A) had rejected the assessee’s request for condonation of delay. Further, it was submitted that the ld. CIT (A) thereafter disposed off the appeal on merits. The ld. AR further pleaded that at the time of hearing before the ld. CIT (A), the assessee could not obtain proper materials from the assessee for pursuing the appeal. It was therefore pleaded that he Ld. CIT (A) may be directed to condone the delay and to hear the appeal afresh thereby providing one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. The Ld DR, on the other hand, submitted that several opportunities have been provided to the assessee however, the assessee and his representative failed to co-operate before the Ld. CIT (A) in the proceedings. Hence, the Ld. CIT (A) was forced to pass the order based on the materials on record. It was therefore requested that the Orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities may be confirmed.
5. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. On perusing the order of the Ld. CIT (A), it is apparent that there was a delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and it appears that the assessee has not furnished cogent evidence with respect to the petition filed seeking condonation delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, on further examining the issue, I find that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) because there were family disputes due to which he was immobilized. Hence, I hereby direct the Ld. CIT (A) to condone the delay in filing the appeal and thereafter hear the appeal afresh thereby 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, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove.
Pronounced in the open Court on 17th January, 2020.