NEELAKANTA REDDY MUDDAM ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD-11(1) , HYDERABAD

The learned CIT (Appeals) is erred in facts and law while passing the order. 2. The learned CIT(Appeals) might have given another opportunity of being heard before dismissing the appeal. 3. Without prejudice to the above, it is requested that the case may be adjudicated on the following grounds of appeal.

The impugned assessment order has been passed by illegally assuming jurisdiction without issuing any notice undersection.148 by the Assessing Officer namely ITO,Ward-11( 1) , Hyderabad and consequently it is void ab initio and liable to be annulled.

The learned A.O. failed to appreciate that the notice undersection.148 issued by the ITO, Prodduturu on 30.03.2017 and got served by affixture on 31.03.2017 was prima facie bad in law because the appellant had med his returns of income for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2015- 16 with Hyderabad address as verifiable from the website of i.T. Department respectively on 14.03.2017 and 16.03.2017. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction to make the impugned reassessment on the basis of illegal affixture of notice by a different Income Tax Officer is bad in law and liable :0 be annulled.

The learned A.O. failed to appreciate that service of notice under section.148 by affixture could be resorted to only when normal service failed and a certificate to that effect was obtained from the notice server or from the postal authority, as enunciated in Order V Rule 20 of CPC r/w. section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction for making the impugned reassessment is void ab initio and liable to be annulled.

At the outset, the ld. AR for the assessee had pointed out that there is a delay of 806 days in filing the present appeal. Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had filed the affidavit explaining the delay in filing the appeal, in the said affidavit the assessee had mentioned the primary reason for not filling the appeal in time to lockdown imposed by the central government on account of Covid

Per contra DR submitted that there is inordinate delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and reasons given by the assessee for the delay have not been supported by the documentary evidence. Accordingly, the learned DR opposed to condone the delay occurred in filing the appeal by the assessee.

We notice at the outset that the appeal filled by the appellant suffer from 806 days delay in filing before the ITAT. In this connection, the assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of the said delay wherein, it was, inter-alia, affirmed that due to lock down imposed by the central government as preventive measures to contain the spread of Covid-19 form 23/03/2020, caused the impugned delay in filing the appeal belatedly. We rely on Case law Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, 1987 AIR 1353 (SC) and University of Delhi Vs. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 9488 & 9489/2019 dated 17 December, 2019, hold that such a delay; supported by cogent reasons, deserves to be condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that revenue’s impugned delay in filing these appeals is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Case is now taken up for adjudication on merits.

In the present case, ld.CIT(A) had dismiss the appeal of the assessee on account of nonappearance and no finding were recorded on merit . It was prayed that the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) be recalled and the matter is remand back to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The ld.DR, relied upon the order passed by the lower authorities.

We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the ld.CIT(A) has disposed the appeal on account of non appearance of the assessee. Section 250(6) of the I.T.Act provides that the order of ld.CIT(A) disposing of the appeal should be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasonings for such decision. Since, in the present case the issue has not been decided by the ld.CIT(A) as per provisions of section 250(6), therefore, we deem it appropriate to remand back the matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A) with a direction to decide the issue afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to appear on each and every date given by the ld.CIT(A) without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the ld.CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly.