Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH & SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD
PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JM:
ITA No. 565/Hyd/2016:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad dated 10.11.2015 for the A.Y 2011-12.
The appeal filed by the assessee Shri Prem Vyas is time barred by 66 days and the assessee filed petition for condonation of delay along with the affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. The contents of the affidavit are as under:
“The CIT(A)-3 has passed the appeal order dated 10.11.2015 dismissing the appeal. The order was sent to my residence through the notice server of the department, I was not available in the residence. The notice server has handed over the appeal order to one of our employees on 17.12.2012. I had a sever calvarical tuberculosis problem in the year 2014 and finally I was treated at Star Hospital wherein I had an inpatient treatment for 4 days. Therefore, I was advised not to engage in
2 ITA No. 565 & 340/Hyd/2016 any heavy works. My affairs were being handled by my manager Ratanlal Ozha, who for the reasons best known to him cheated me and absconded with my family jewellery. I had booked a police complaint on 27.05.2015. Thus my personal works could not be attended to in time. In the month of December when I was informed of the receipt of order of the First Appellate Authority my mother Smt. Uma Devi started complaining pain in the head and chest. After several consultations she was finally diagnosed as having clots of blood in the brain and heart. I myself was a patient and I had to take care of my mother also. Thus in the thick of medical problem I could not consult my tax consultant for further action on receipt of order of the CIT(A). To make matters worse I met with a major car accident and was admitted in AAROGY Hospital for treatment. After recovering well I consulted my tax advisor, who advised me to file this appeal before Hon’ble ITAT, Hyderabad. Collecting sufficient evidences in the form of medical records took some time due to my ill health”. 2.1 Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal was not due to any wilful negligence but it was only due to the health reasons explained in the affidavit. Therefore, he submitted that there is a reasonable cause in not filing the appeal in time and prayed for condoning the delay.
2.2 Ld. DR on the other hand objected for condonation of delay.
2.3 On hearing both sides and perusing the affidavit filed by the assessee and the reasons given therein, we are of the view that assessee is prevented from reasonable cause in not filing the appeal in time, thus, we condone the delay and admit the appeal.
The assessee in this appeal contested the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition made towards unexplained cash credits in respect of the deposits made in bank accounts and addition towards unsecured loans.
3 ITA No. 565 & 340/Hyd/2016 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the order was passed ex-parte by Ld. CIT(A) as the assessee could not represent before the Ld. CIT(A) due to personal reasons and also on health grounds. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further referring to the assessment order submitted that the assessee could furnish only part of the information called for by the A.O. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that additional evidences were furnished in the form of first information report dated 18.04.2015 in FIR 255/2015 and FIR 170/2015 dated 27.05.2015 in the case of Ratanlal Ojha the accountant of the assessee who absconded with the jewellery of the assessee. It is submitted that he did not furnish information properly in the course of assessment proceedings. Thus Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the A.O, giving assessee an opportunity to furnish required information to substantiate the assessee’s claims.
On the other hand Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below.
Heard rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below. In the course of the assessment proceedings the assessee furnished only part information as recorded by A.O himself and the appeal filed by the assessee could not be prosecuted by the assessee due to health reasons therefore could not appear in response to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). In this circumstances, in the interest of justice we feel it appropriate to restore the issues to the file of the A.O who shall decide in accordance with law after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, we restore the issue to the A.O for de-novo adjudication
4 ITA No. 565 & 340/Hyd/2016 ITA No. 340/Hyd/2016
In respect of the appeal in the case of Smt. Uma Devi facts being identical following our above order we restore the issues in this appeal to the file of the A.O for de-novo adjudication after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open Court on 20th July, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Hyderabad, Dated: 20th July, 2018 KRK Copy to:- 1) Shri Prem Vyas C/o Ch. Parthasarathy & Co., 1-1-298/2/B/3, 1st floor, Sowbhagya avenue, St. No. 1, Ashoknagar, Hyderabad. 2) Smt. Uma Devi C/o Ch. Parthasarathy & Co., 1-1-298/2/B/3, 1st floor, Sowbhagya avenue, St. No. 1, Ashoknagar, Hyderabad. 3) ITO, Ward-7(4), Hyderabad. 4) CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad. 5) Pr. CIT-3, Hyderabad. 6) The Departmental Representative, I.T.A.T., Hyderabad. 7) Guard File