ABDUL MUQEET MOHAMMED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Though the assessee has raised as many as six grounds but the solitary issue is with respect to the addition of Rs.19,79,950/- u/s 69A of the Act.

The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual deriving income from the sale of Pan Masal and Tobacco. Assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2019-20 on 24.08.2020 admitting a total income of Rs.8,35,132/-. On 09.08.2018 on receipt of credible information that the assessee and another were indulged in illegal storage and selling of banned noxious tobacco products at the premises of assessee, police authorities reached spot and found certain tobacco in the racks of shop and also cash of Rs.19,79,950/-. On enquiry, assessee failed to explain the sources of the above cash and as such notice u/s 132 of the Act was issued and the said cash was seized from the assessee.

Feeling aggrieved with the order of AO, assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of assessee on account of non-prosecution and on merits.

Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us.

Before us, the ld.AR for the assessee submitted that assessee is aged about 70 years and is suffering from old age ailments. He had also submitted that on account of old age, assessee was not able to respond to the various notices issued by the learned respondent and as such failed to participate in the proceedings. Ld. AR also submitted that one more opportunity may kindly be granted to the assessee to enable him to participate in the proceedings before the ld.CIT(A).

Per contra, the ld.DR had drawn our attention to Para 6.1 of the order of ld.CIT(A) wherein the ld.CIT(A) has categorically mentioned that various opportunities were granted to the assessee but the assessee / ld.AR of the assessee failed to file any reply and participate in the proceedings. It was also the contention of the ld.DR that the Tribunal should not take a liberal view and grant an opportunity to the assessee, who was careless, negligent and therefore, failed to appear before the ld.CIT(A) (a quasi judicial authority) despite grant of several opportunities.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Undoubtedly, the assessee had failed to appear before the ld.CIT(A) on various occasions as mentioned in the impugned order. However, on categorical enquiry by the Bench from the ld.AR whether he had appeared on behalf the assessee or any other counsel appeared on behalf of the assessee to pursue the matter before the ld.CIT(A). To which, the ld.AR replied that he was not the person who appeared before the ld.CIT(A) and some other counsel represented the matter before the ld.CIT(A). Though, the earlier ld.AR was not the counsel before us, however, no reasons were brought on record, substantiating his absence during the appellate proceedings before the ld.CIT(A). In my view, it is a serious misconduct on the part of the earlier ld.AR for which necessary remedial action should be taken by the concerned authority. However, in my view, on account of the fault of authorised representative / chartered accountant / advocate of assessee, the assessee should not be made to suffer and more particularly, when the assessee happened to be a senior citizen and is not conversant with the digital communication. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to restore the appeal for afresh adjudication before the ld.CIT(A) and I hereby direct the ld.CIT(A) to grant one opportunity only to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to appear for the hearing in time before the ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. The assessee shall file all the documents at the first instance and shall not any adjournment before the ld.CIT(A). In light of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.