Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD
Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 785/Hyd/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & S.A No. 11/Hyd/2019 [in ITA No. 785/Hyd/2018] Assessment Year: 2013-14
Sri Gautamchand Rathore, vs. Income Tax Officer, 65, Manovikas Nagar, Ward – 10(2), 5th floor, Opp. Hasamatpet Tel IT Towers, AC Guards, Exchange, Old Bowenpally, Hyderabad. Hyderabad.
PAN – AARPG0349M
(Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K.C. Devdas, AR Revenue by : Shri Nilanjan (DR)
Date of hearing : 04-02-2019 Date of pronouncement : 13-02-2019 ORDER PER P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M.: This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y 2013-14 against the order of the CIT(A)-6, Hyderabad dated 19.02.2018. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A)-6, Hyderabad is holding that the appeal filed by the appellant is liable for dismissal and non- prosecution is totally contrary to the facts and evidence on record and is therefore unsustainable.
2 ITA.No. 785/Hyd/2018 Gautamchand Rathore., Hyd.
The CIT(A) failed to note that there were compliances to all the notices issued for appearance and that the appellant did not receive the last notice of 7/2/2018 and therefore could not comply. 3. The entire order passed by the CIT(A) is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity was given to the appellant to place the facts on merits. 4. Your appellant craves leave to add, to amend, or alter the above grounds of appeal as may be advised. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee an individual, filed his return of income for the A.Y 2013-14 electronically on 12.12.2013 admitting total income of Rs. 15,36,040/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and thereafter necessary notices were issued and served on the assessee. However, the assessee did not appear and file the necessary details. When the questionnaire requiring certain details were served on the assessee, the assessee’s representative appeared and requested for short adjournment for producing the details on the ground that both the assessee’s mother and brother died within a span of four days and therefore, he is not in a position to comply with the notice. The A.O, therefore adjourned the matter to 03.03.2016, but since assessee did not appear nor comply with the requirements as on that date also, the A.O completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act by making certain additions and bringing them to tax.
3 ITA.No. 785/Hyd/2018 Gautamchand Rathore., Hyd.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee has failed to appear and furnish the required details before him. Thus, the assessee is in second appeal before us.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had failed to comply with the notices of the A.O due to sudden demise of his mother and brother within a span of four days after receipt of notice. He submitted that even before the CIT(A), the assessee had appeared and sought for adjournments on two occasions and it was only on the last occasion that the assessee could not appear and the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non- prosecution. Further, He also argued the matter on merits before us and prayed that the assessee may be given an opportunity to present his case.
The Ld. DR, on the other hand, filed his written submissions stating that the assessee has consciously failed to appear and cooperate with the authorities below and therefore the assessee’s appeal should not be entertained. He submitted that the assessee though had
4 ITA.No. 785/Hyd/2018 Gautamchand Rathore., Hyd.
claimed the death of his mother and brother as a reason for nonappearance before the A.O, he has not fail to carry on his business activities during that period, which goes show that there was a conscious attempt by the assessee to evade the proceedings before the authorities below.
Having regard to the rival contentions and the material available on record, we find that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause of the death of his mother and his brother, in appearing before the A.O in response to the notices. Be the CIT(A) also, we find that the assessee had appeared in two occasions and filed applications for adjournment and it was only on 07.02.2018, that neither the assessee nor his authorized representative appeared nor filed any adjournment petition. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that, the CIT(A) had no option but to decide the appeal ex-parte. But the CIT(A) ought to have disposed of the appeal on merits and not dismissed the same for non-prosecution. In view of the same, we deem it proper to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remand the same to the file of the A.O for de-novo consideration in accordance with law and we direct the assessee to cooperate with the A.O for speedy disposal
5 ITA.No. 785/Hyd/2018 Gautamchand Rathore., Hyd.
of his case. Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
As the corresponding appeal of the SA is adjudicated as above, the SA filed by the assessee becomes infructuous and therefore, the same is dismissed as infructuous.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open court on 13th February, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Hyderabad, Dated: 13th February, 2019 KRK
1) Sri Gautamchand Rathore, 65, Manovikas Nagar, Opp Hasamatpet Tel Exchange, Old Bowenpally, Hyd – 09. 2) ITO, Ward – 10(2), Hyderabad. 3) CIT(A)-6, Hyderabad. 4) Pr.CIT-6, Hyderabad. 5) The Departmental Representative, I.T.A.T., Hyderabad. 6) Guard File.