RAM GOPAL VARMA PENUMATSA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD
आआआआ आआआआआआ आआआआआआ, आआआआआआआआ आआआ
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad
BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.826/Hyd/2024
(निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09)
Shri Ram Gopal Varma Penumatsa,
Hyderabad.
PAN:AGFPP4793C
Vs.
Income Tax Officer,
Ward-14(1), Hyderabad.
(Appellant)
(Respondent)
निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A.
रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue by:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 08/01/2025
घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 16/01/2025
आदेश/ORDER
PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.:
This appeal is filed by Shri Ram Gopal Varma
Penumatsa (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income
Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC),
Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 27.06.2024 for the A.Y. 2008-
09. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds :
“ 1. The penalty order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act dt. 27.06.2024 is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant.
ITA No.826/Hyd/2024 2
The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the appellant does not have any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the assessee's letters submitted mentioning the reasons for not attending the summons u/s 131 of the Act and ought not to have levied the penalty u/s 272A(1)(c) of the Act for Rs. 60,000/-. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought have appreciated the fact that the appellant has reasonable cause for his failure to respond to the summonses issued u/s 131 of the Act. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the CIT(A) has allowed the main appeal in favour of assessee, therefore penalty arises on the same should be quashed. 7. Appellant may, add or alter or amend or modify or substitute or delete and/or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
The brief facts are that, the assessee is an individual and carrying on the profession of directing the films. He filed his Return of Income (“ROI”) for the A.Y. 2008-09 on 07.10.2008 declaring total income of Rs.60,64,590/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS and accordingly notice u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) were issued to the assessee. The Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) also issued summons requiring the personal attendance of the assessee on six occasions. However, no response was made by the assessee to any of the summons. Accordingly, the Ld. AO passed penalty order u/s.272A(1)(c) of the Act on 29.11.2010 levying penalty of Rs.60,000/- for each of the default @ Rs.10,000/-.
ITA No.826/Hyd/2024 3
Aggrieved by the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that, he being a movie director requires frequent travelling, due to which it was not possible for him to attend on the dates summoned by the Ld. AO. However, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of Ld. AO on the ground that the assessee did not file any proof of adjournment letter as well as did not file proof of travelling at the relevant point of time. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT remanded the issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, the relevant portion of the decision of ITAT is reproduced as under : "We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on records 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 Assessing Officer. 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 Assessing Officer. However, the CIT(A), confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer on the grounds 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
ITA No.826/Hyd/2024 4
evidence to substantiate assessee's case. On considering the totality of the facts and circumstances the case, on the grounds 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 opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the matter. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.”
In second round, the Ld. CIT(A) called for the evidences from the assessee in support of his claim. However, in second round of appeal also, the assessee could not produce the same before the Ld. CIT(A).
Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
6. Again aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal.
7. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that, the assessee had made submission before the Ld. CIT(A) within the stipulated time along with all the required evidences called by the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A), without considering the submission of the assessee, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In support of their submission, the Ld. AR brought to our notice to page no.1 of paper book containing the acknowledgement of the submission made before the Ld. CIT(A). Finally, the Ld. AR prayed before the bench for providing one more opportunity to produce the ITA No.826/Hyd/2024 5
necessary evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) and get their issue decided on merits.
8. Per contra, the Learned Department Representative (“Ld. DR”) rejected to the request of the assessee for fresh opportunity. He submitted that even after the direction of ITAT, in second round also, the assessee could not produce the necessary evidence in support of his claim before the Ld. CIT(A).
9. We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made by either side. We have gone through the page no.1 of paper book containing the acknowledgement of the submission made before the Ld. CIT(A) and found that, the assessee had filed their submission before the Ld.
CIT(A) on 27/06/2024 and the Ld. CIT(A) also passed his order on the same date. However, the Ld.CIT(A) passed his order without considering the submission of the assessee filed on 27/06/2024, which resulted in passing the orders without consideration thereof on merits.
Further, it is a fact that the assessee does not stand to gain by not producing such documents. Be that as it may, now the assessee is ready to produce once again all such documentary evidences in support of their contentions and get the matter disposed of on merits.
The highest that would happen by allowing an opportunity to the assessee is that a cause would be decided on merits. With this view of the matter and considering the principle of natural justice, we are of the view that one last opportunity should be given to the assessee.
Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to ITA No.826/Hyd/2024 6
the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for passing a fresh order on merits after affording the opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Grounds of appeal are answered accordingly.
10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 16th Jan., 2025. (LALIET KUMAR)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Hyderabad.
Dated: 16.01.2025. * Reddy gp
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. Shri Ram Gopal Varma Penumatsa, C/o P. Murali
& Co., C.As, 6-3-655/2/3, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-
500082
2. ITO, Ward 14(1), Hyderabad.
3. Pr.CIT, Hyderabad.
4. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad.
5. Guard file.
BY ORDER,