Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B-SMC”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1024/Hyd/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sri Talluri Vijay Rahul, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-15(1), PAN: ALBPT 7359 K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.1025/Hyd/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sri Talluri Venkata Ramana Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-15(1), PAN: AWLPR 5951 N Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Smt. Sandhya Revenue by: Sri Nilanjan Dey, DR Date of hearing: 01/10/2019 Date of pronouncement: 10/10/2019 ORDER
These two appeals are filed by the assessees against the orders of the Ld. CIT (A)-7, Hyderabad in appeal Nos. 0549 & 0550/CIT(A)- 7/2016-17, dated 18/4/2019 passed U/s. 272A(1)(c) r.w.s 274 & 250(6) of the Act for the AY 2014-15.
Both the assessees have raised three identical grounds in their respective appeals however, the crux of the issue is that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred by confirming the penalty levied by the Ld. AO U/s. 272A(1)(c) of the Act for Rs. 10,000/-.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee Sri Talluri Vijay Rahul is an individual engaged in the profession as Architect and Engineers filed his return of income for AY 2014-15 on 26/11/2014 admitting total income of Rs. 2,19,557/-. The assessee had also declared Rs. 22,75,500/- as his net agricultural income. Similarly, the assessee Sri Talluri Venkata Ramana is an individual engaged in professional services filed his return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 21/11/2014 admitting his taxable income as Rs. 2,14,007/-. He also declared net agricultural income of Rs. 22,95,800/-. Both the assessees are residing in the same address mentioned hereinabove. Both the returns filed by the assessees were taken up for scrutiny under CASS for the reason that they had declared enormous amount of agricultural income. Notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act were issued to both the assessees which were returned unserved stating that no such persons are residing in the address. Subsequently, several notices were issued to both the assesses, and they were served by affixtures also. However, both the assessees refused to be present before the Ld. AO. Hence ex-parte order was passed by the Ld. AO by treating the agricultural income declared
by the assessees as income from other source. The Ld. AO also levied penalty U/s. 272A(1)(c) r.w.s 274 of the Act for Rs. 10,000/- each in the case of both the assessees. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, both the assessees went on appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). In the appellate proceedings The Ld. CIT (A) obtained the remand report from the Ld. AO wherein it was confirmed that both the assessees had deliberately refrained from appearing before the Ld. AO. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Ld. AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), both the assessees are now in appeal before us.
The Ld. AR vehemently argued before me stating that both the assessees though had retained their residential house at Hyderabad they were out of station and most of time residing in Vijayawada due to their profession/business. Hence, they were unaware about the notices issued / affixed by the Revenue in their Hyderabad residence and therefore could not appear before the Ld. AO on the scheduled time. It was therefore pleaded that the levy of penalty invoking the provisions of section 272A(1)(c) of the Act may be deleted. The Ld. DR on the other hand vehemently argued supporting the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities and pleaded for confirming their order.
I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. From the facts of the case it appears that both the
assessees might have deliberately not cooperated before the Ld. AO in the proceedings. Both the assessees had also declared enormous amount of agricultural income in their return of income which is exempt from tax. This behaviour of the assessees will definitely create suspicion in the minds of the Revenue that both the assessees are shying away from the Revenue to cooperate with them in their proceedings. However, considering the arguments of the Ld. AR that both the assessees were residing in Vijayawada due to their professional/Business commitments, warrants a benefit of doubt in their favour. Therefore, taking a lenient view and relying on the provisions of section 273B of the Act, as we find a reasonable cause for the failure on the part of both the assessees to appear before the Ld. AO, since they were residing outside Hyderabad, we hereby direct the Ld. AO to delete the penalty levied invoking the provisions of section 272A(1)(c) of the Act for Rs. 10,000/- each in the hands of both the assessees.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
Pronounced in the open Court on 10th October, 2019.
Sd/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 10th October, 2019
OKK Copy to:- 1) Sri Talluri Vijay Rahul, (ii) Talluri Venkata Ramana, 7-132/3/2, Plot No. 108, Durga Nagar, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad. 2) Income Tax Officer, Ward 15(1), IT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 3) The CIT(A)-7, Hyderabad 4) The Pr. CIT-7, Hyderabad 5) The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 6) Guard File