SAI KRISHNA CHENNUPATI,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, deriving income from business; that he has been a partner in M/s SPG Enterprises, which was appointed by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, as stockiest for lubricants for some districts in Andhra Pradesh. In the year 2007, that he purchased a flat in Bengaluru by availing a housing loan, that on 17.4.2018, there was a search proceeding at the residence of one Mr. B.R. Madan Mohan Reddy; and at that time, a cash of Rs.49,92,000 was found with the assessee; and that therefore, while serving notice u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), the assessments for the A.Ys 2013-14 to 2019-20 were sought to be opened. In so far as the appeals on hand are concerned, they relate to the A.Y 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19.

At the outset, it is submitted on behalf of the assessee that it could be seen from the record that a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 27.3.2021 along with a questionnaire and show-cause notice was issued on 7.4.2021 to submit certain details as mentioned in such notice. Grievance of the assessee is, however, that without allowing any reasonable opportunity to the assessee, the assessment order was passed on 12.04.2021 and therefore, the assessee is deprived of sufficient/reasonable opportunity to prosecute through defense before the Assessing Officer. Learned AR fairly prayed to set aside the impugned order to the file of the learned Assessing Officer to dispose them of after giving an opportunity to the assessee.

Learned DR vehemently opposed the request of the assessee on the ground that even if, for the sake of argument, we agree with the assessee that no sufficient opportunities were granted to the assessee by the learned Assessing Officer, still the assessee had sufficient time to submit all the material before the learned CIT (A) and therefore, there is no truth in the statement of the assessee and requested that the Tribunal not to allow any relief to the assessee.

In reply, it is submitted by the assessee that during the time when the assessment order was passed, the pandemic was at its peak and had disrupted every day life of everyone and the learned CIT (A) disposed of this appeal on 11.10.2021 and because of the disruption caused by the pandemic, there was no coordinated effort that could be put by the assessee to pursue the remedies and, therefore, having regard to the vagaries of pandemic, a lenient view may kindly be taken to afford an opportunity to the assessee to put forth their case before the authorities.

We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. In so far as the dates mentioned by the assessee are considered, the record speaks for itself and even according to the assessment order notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 27.3.2021, show-cause notice seeking details was issued on 7.4.21 and the assessment order was passed on 12.4.21. We can take judicial notice of the fact that during this period, the pandemic was at its peak, disrupting the daily activities of everyone across the globe. Learned Assessing Officer may be running short of time to complete the assessment, which perhaps driven him to conclude the assessment even without the assessee participating in the proceedings and that is the reason why the order was passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 153A was passed. The same reason applies with equal force to the proceedings before the learned CIT (A) because, even during the period of the pendency of the first appellate proceedings, the pandemic did not grant any remission to restore life process of the people to the normalcy.

In these circumstances what occurs to our mind is that granting an opportunity to the assessee would only further the cause of justification and determination of the just tax liability of the assessee. Unless and until any substantial prejudice is caused to the Revenue by setting aside the matter and restoration of the proceedings to the file of the learned Assessing Officer, we are of the opinion that allowing the technicalities to overrun the cause of justice is impermissible. Opportunities must be real but not a mere paperwork. Hence what would happen by restoring the issue to the file of the learned Assessing Officer is that the merits of the case could be decided after hearing the parties.

With this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of the learned Assessing Officer to take a view afresh after affording an opportunity to the assessee of being heard. We make it clear to the assessee that no lenient view would be taken further, and the assessee is bound to cooperate with the authorities as and when such cooperation is called for.