Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed his return of income for AY 2012-13. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 and added Rs. 1,48,53,360/- due to unexplained cash deposits and unoffered professional receipts. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee's inability to access documents was due to a genuine dispute regarding premises belonging to TTD, and there was a pending appeal before the Supreme Court. The CIT(A) erroneously concluded the adjournment was sought on a false statement without proper verification.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without proper verification of the assessee's grounds for adjournment due to ongoing litigation.
Sections Cited
148, 142(1), 144, 147, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI MANJUNATHA. G & SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY
आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the order dated 02/08/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Na�onal Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Vishnucharan Sunku (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Vishnucharan Sunku (“the assessee”), assessee preferred this appeal.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that assessee filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 on 17/06/2013. On the reason that assessee made huge cash deposits in his bank account and further did not offer the professional receipts to tax, no�ce U/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 28/03/2019 and subsequently no�ce U/s 142(1) of the Act was also issued to the assessee however, there was no response from the assessee. Therefore, the learned Assessing Officer, in the absence of any explana�on with respect to the source of cash deposits made in his bank account, completed the assessment U/s. 144 read with sec�on 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) and made addi�on of Rs. 1,48,53,360/- which includes the professional fee received by the assessee from M/s. Sree Rayalaseema Alkalies and Allied Chemicals Ltd and passed the assessment order dated 11/12/2019. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A).
Learned CIT(A) confirmed the addi�on of Rs. 1,48,53,360/- made by the learned Assessing Officer. While dismissing the appeal of assessee, learned CIT(A) did not accept the conten�on of assessee that due to closure of his office premises, assessee was unable to obtain the documents to file the submissions during the First Appellate Proceedings and a Writ Pe��on was also pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana. Learned CIT(A) further observed that assessee’s conten�on is not tenable as the assessee’s Writ Pe��on before the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana was already disposed of. Aggrieved, assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.
Learned Authorized Representa�ve (“learned AR”) submi�ed before us that since the Writ Pe��on filed by the assessee before the Hon’ble Telangana High Court was dismissed, the assessee filed a Special Leave Pe��on before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India with respect to access to the premises for collec�ng belongings and par�culars. Learned CIT(A) without enquiring the Page 2 of 5 Vishnucharan Sunku assessee whether there is any further ac�on from the assessee’s a�er the dismissal of the Writ Pe��on by the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana i.e., if any appeal is pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court, arbitrarily adjudicated the case and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, the learned AR pleaded for remi�ng the ma�er to the file of the learned Assessing Officer in order to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to represent his case.
Per contra, learned Departmental Representa�ve (“learned DR”) relied on the orders of the lower authori�es.
We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. Record clearly establishes that when the assessee sought adjournment on the ground that due to some disputes of his wife, namely, Smt. S Vaishnavi with the Tirumala Tirupa� Devastanams (“TTD”) due to which the office space of his wife was sealed by the authori�es and the pending li�ga�on, learned CIT(A) verified from the website of the Hon’ble Telangana High Court and found that the pe��on of his wife was decided by the Hon’ble High Court by order dated 3/5/2024 in the learned CIT(A) concluded thereon that a false statement was made by the assessee to seek the adjournment and therefore proceed ex-parte and decide the ma�er behind the assessee.
A perusal of the order dated 23/9/2020 in Special Leave Pe��on No. 21205/2025 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, clearly establishes that there is some li�ga�on in respect of which the relief was sought by the assessee against the TTD, and such relief relates to access to the premises in ques�on for collec�on of her belongings, in par�cular, the documents. Further the website screenshots filed by the assessee show that as against the order of the Hon’ble Telangana High Court the assessee preferred appeal before the Supreme Court in the same is pending. The photographs filed by the assessee further show that the premises in which the assessee claims the documents were under lock and key.
Page 3 of 5 Vishnucharan Sunku 8. All these circumstances clearly show that there is a genuine dispute regarding the premises belonging to the TTD and that is reason why the assessee is unable to have access to record to prosecute the first appeal diligently and that is the reason why the assessee sought adjournment before the learned CIT (A), but the learned CIT(A) on verifica�on of the website of the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana, but without seeking further informa�on from the assessee as to the stage of li�ga�on concluded that the li�ga�on was complete and the assessee sought adjournment on false statement. It is clear that the learned CIT(A) misled himself on self-enquiry without proper verifica�on from the par�es.
With this view of the ma�er, we find that there is sufficient reason for the assessee to seek adjournment before the learned CIT(A) and the ma�er needs to be considered a�er affording some more opportunity to the assessee. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and restore the same to the file of the learned Assessing Officer for considering it afresh, a�er affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Grounds are answered accordingly.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for sta�s�cal purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on the 23rd January, 2025.