Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ SMC Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Smt. P. Madhavi DeviSmt. Preseilla Yeddu
This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y 2012-13 against the order of the CIT (A)-5, Hyderabad, dated 31.05.2017.
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
Page 1 of 4
ITA No 550 of 2018 Preseilla Yadu Hyderabad.
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:
“1. The order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent it is prejudicial to the assessee. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the order of the assessing Officer without giving any further opportunity. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in confirming the action of the assessing officer in Estimating the net @O. 4 2% on turnover of Rs 28,93,63,618/- without considering the appellant submissions. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in confirming the action of the Assessing officer in sustaining the total income of Rs 12,02,080/ -- as against the income admitted of Rs 5,34,773/- 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in charging of interest of Rs 70,830/- u/s 234B and Rs 1,345/- u/s 234C of the LT Act. 6. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing”.
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
Page 2 of 4
ITA No 550 of 2018 Preseilla Yadu Hyderabad.
(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.
Page 3 of 4
ITA No 550 of 2018 Preseilla Yadu Hyderabad.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 15th March, 20198.
Sd/- (P. Madhavi Devi) Judicial Member
Hyderabad, dated 15th March, 2019. Vinodan/sps
Copy to:
1 Shri T.Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate. Flat No.102, Gouri Apartment, Urdulane, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad 2 ITO Ward 11(4) Hyderabad 3 CIT (A)-5 Hyderabad 4 Pr. CIT – 5 Hyderabad 5 The DR, ITAT Hyderabad 6 Guard File By Order
Page 4 of 4