RAMGOPAL VARMA PENUMATSA, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-13, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Briefly the facts of the case are, assessee is carrying on the profession of directing the films, filed the return of income on 07/10/2008 declaring total income of Rs. 60,64,590/-. As there was no response to the notices issued u/s 143(2), AO issued summons requiring the personal attendance of the assessee on six occasions i.e. on 31/08/2010, 08/09/2010, 01/10/201, 09/10/2010, 11/11/2010 and 19/11/2010. However, there was no response to any of the summons issued. Finally, a show cause notice was issued by the AO on 18/11/2010 asking for explanation as to why penalty should not be levied for not attending in response to summons. There was no compliance in response to the said show cause notice also.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A).

The CIT(A) observed that nobody attended in response to hearing notices issued time and again, however, one request for adjournment was made on 21/11/2011 and finally, written submissions were filed on 31/11/2016, in which, it was stated that assessee was not given sufficient time to respond to the summons and further stated that the assessee being movie director requires frequent travelling, due to which it was not possible for the assessee to attend on the dates summoned by the AO.

After considering the submissions of the assesse, the CIT(A) upheld the penalty levied by the AO by holding that the assessee wilfully and deliberately avoided responding to the summons and hence AO had to resort to levy of penalty.

Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in both law and on facts in dismissing the appeal.

Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee filed written submissions before the CIT(A) 31/11/2016 and requested for adjournment. However, the ld. CIT(A) without providing opportunity to the assessee dismissed the appeal of the assessee without going into merits of the case.

The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of revenue authorities.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record as well as gone through the orders of revenue authorities. It is observed that the assessee neither appeared during the course of assessment proceedings nor appeared in the penalty proceedings initiated by the AO. Before the CIT(A) filed written submissions, wherein, it was contended that assessee was not given sufficient time to respond to the summons and further stated that the assessee being movie director requires frequent travelling, due to which it was not possible for the assessee to attend on the dates summoned by the AO. However, the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO on the ground that the assessee has not filed proof of adjournment letters as well as not filed proof of travelling at the relevant point of time. Even before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has not filed any documentary evidence to substantiate assessee’s case. On considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, on the ground of principles of natural justice, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to represent his case. Accordingly, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remit the matter to the file of CIT(A) with a direction to decide the issue afresh after providing reasonable

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 27th June, 2018.