SRI KIRTHAN REDDY MUDDASANI,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), HYDERABAD

Pursuant to the search and seizure operations under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) on 9/8/2018 in respect of M/s. Moksha Infracon Pvt. Ltd and M/s. Kaveri Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd, orders under section 143(3) of the Act were passed in respect of the assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 in respect of Mr. Kirthan Reddy and for the assessment year 2019-20 in respect of Sahodhar Reddy. Aggrieved by such orders, both the assessees preferred appeals before the Ld. CIT(A).

It could be seen from the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessees did not co-operate with the disposal of the matters on merits and in spite of granting several adjournments, they fail to comply with the requirements of the notice but instead went on seeking adjournments. Ld. CIT(A), therefore, drew an inference that the assessees had no intention to proceed with the merits of the case and that is the reason why they are dodging with the matter. Ld. CIT(A), therefore, thereafter proceeded with the matter and decided it, ex parte dismissing the appeals.

Assessees are therefore before us in these appeals stating that no proper opportunity of hearing was granted to them and as a matter of fact an application for adjournment was filed on 6/7/2022 requesting for fifteen days, but without considering the same the Ld. CIT(A) disposed of the matter ex parte.

It is the submission on behalf of the assessees that due to the prevailing Covid pandemic situations, the assessees could not pursue the remedies diligently and giving an opportunity they are ready to cooperate with the disposal of the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) on merits. Ld. DR brought to our attention to the several acts of hearing enumerated by the Ld. CIT(A) in the order and submitted that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the assessees in all these appeals, but the assessees could not avail the same.

We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. Record speaks that half a dozen notices were issued to the assessees after filing of the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) and they assessees went on requesting for the time and did not pursue the remedies diligently. However, it cannot be denied that the appeals were preferred during the pandemic period. Though the Ld. CIT(A) referred to the merits of the case, the fact remains that the assessees did not put forth their cases before the Ld. CIT(A) for affective adjudication.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that affording an opportunity to the assessees will meet the ends of justice and with that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned orders and restore the files to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for disposing them of according to law, after affording an opportunity to the assessees. We make it amply clear to the assessees that it is the final opportunity and no further opportunity would be afforded to them. We direct and order so.

In the result, all these appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.