Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Rekulapally Sadanandam (HUF), VS. Income Tax Officer, Warangal. Ward-4, PAN: AAOHR 1270 D Warangal. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri G. Manikya Prasad Revenue by: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 10/01/2022 Date of pronouncement: 18/01/2022 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Pr.CIT/CIT-3, Hyderabad in DIN No. ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2019-20/1026899644(1), dated 30/03/2020 passed U/s. 263 of the Act for the A.Y.: 2010-11.
The assessee has raised seven grounds in his appeal and they are extracted herein below for reference:- “1. The appellant objects to the order of the Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax passed U/s. 263 of the Act as bad in law and on facts.
2. The Learned Pr. CIT-3, Hyderabad erred in holding that the order passed by ITO on 1/6/2006 is erroneous and thereby prejudicial to the interest of the revenue despite the fact that the A.O. completed the Assessment U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 after taking consideration the full facts of the sale which occurred on 27/11/2006 and other relevant documents and making necessary enquiries as thought fit and proper by him.
3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in coming to the conclusion, the order is erroneous and prejudicial on wrong surmises and wrong interpretation of the law and wrong application of provision of 50C for ascertaining the date of completion of sale. 4. The appellant submits that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax erred in coming into the conclusion that the sale occurred when the documents was given a final number on 23/11/2009 after pending registration on 30/11/2006. 5. The appellant submits that as per the income tax law r.w.s 53A of transfer of property act, there is transfer of property after receiving sale consideration (even part of it and after giving possession of property to the purchases). In the appellant case they had received total consideration and possession was given on or before 30/11/2006. 6. On the grounds prayed above for any other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the appellant prays to cancel the order of the PCIT U/s. 263 of the Act as it is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 7. The appellant prays leave either to amend or modify or withdraw any or some of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing as considered necessary.”
At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that there is a delay of 451 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee had filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay wherein the reasons for filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit is explained. For reference, the relevant portion from the affidavit is extracted herein below: -
“…….. I submit that the delay in filing the appeal occurred due to non-receipt of the order passed U/s. 263 as submitted above ………………………… For the reasons stated above explained the delay occurred due to pandemic conditions and consequence disruption in the normal functioning of the offices which was beyond my control and I humbly prays the Hon’ble Tribunal to condone the delay……..”
On perusal of the affidavit filed by the assessee, We are of the view that the reason for the delay in filing the appeal was due to the pandemic situation prevailed during the relevant period of time. Therefore, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST. Katiji & Ors (167 ITR 471) (SC), We are of the view that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause in filing the appeal beyond the stipulated time and therefore, in the interest of justice, We hereby condone the delay of 451 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits.
At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before us stating that the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has passed ex-parte order without providing an opportunity to the assessee of being heard. It was therefore pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld Pr. CIT in order to provide one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Ld. DR, on the other hand, vehemently opposed to the submissions of the Ld. AR and argued that sufficient opportunities had been provided to the assessee however, on the given dates of hearing, neither the assessee nor its Representative appeared before the Ld. Pr. CIT. Therefore the Ld. Pr. CIT had no other option but to pass ex-parte order based on the materials available on record. Hence, it was pleaded that the order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT does not call for any interference.
We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. On examining the facts of the case, We find merit in the submissions of the Ld. DR. When the Ld. Pr. CIT had posted the case for hearing on several occasions, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the Ld. Pr. CIT on the dates of hearing. Therefore, the Ld. Pr. CIT was left with no other option except to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte. In this situation, We do not find much strength in the arguments advanced by the ld. AR. However, considering the prayer of the Ld. AR, in the interest of justice, We hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld. Pr. CIT/CIT in order to consider the case of the assessee afresh on merits by providing one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. At the same breath, We also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate before the Ld. Pr. CIT/CIT in the proceedings failing which the Ld. Pr. CIT/CIT shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials on the record. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove.
Pronounced in the open Court on the 18th January, 2022.