PRESEILLA YEDDU,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(4), HYDERABAD

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual and Proprietress of M/s. Laxmi Narasimha Filling Station, e-filed her return of income for the A.Y 2012-13 on 30.09.2012 admitting total income of Rs.5,21,520/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS with a reason low “net profit or loss shown by you from large Gross receipts”. Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee. The assessee was asked to produce the books of account, Bank A/c statements, purchase and sale deed etc., However, there was no compliance by the assessee. On subsequent occasion, the assessee’s brother appeared and submitted copy of the Bank statements and invoices/details. The assessee was asked to show cause the reason for low net profit, but there was no explanation and therefore, the AO estimated the profit at 0.42% of the gross sales and accordingly determined the net profit at Rs.12,15,327/- and brought it to tax. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A) who dismissed the same for non-appearance of the assessee. The assessee is in second appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal:

The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from appearance before the CIT (A) and submitted that the Authorised Representative of the assessee had not appeared before the CIT (A) due to which, the CIT (A) dismissed the appeal in limini. In fact there is a delay of 43 days and even in the said application, the assessee has explained that the previous Auditor of the assessee had not informed about the dismissal of the appeal and thereafter when she changed the Auditor, she came to know about the dismissal of the appeal and filed this appeal before the Tribunal. Thus, there is a delay of 43 days in filing the appeal. The learned Counsel for the assessee therefore, prayed for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal and also sought remand the issue to the file of the CIT (A).

The learned DR was also heard.

Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, I find that the assessee was not represented before the CIT (A) and therefore, the appeal was dismissed for want of non- prosecution and the assessee has filed the appeal before me also belatedly with a delay of 43 days. Taking note of the assessee’s contention in the condonation application, I condone the delay in filing of the appeal and I deem it fit and proper to remand the issue to the file of the CIT (A) for a decision on merits. The assessee shall cooperate with the CIT (A) by filing all the necessary details.

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