KALAPALA VENKAT S/O. KVNS PRASAD,KRISHNA DISTRICT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDIWADA
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM SMC BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE
PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, Judicial Member :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi in DIN & Order No ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1047673247(1), dated 28/11/2022 arising out of the order passed U/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act.
2 2. At the outset, it is observed from the record available before me that there is a delay of 157 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. With respect to belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay along with the affidavit and the relevant paras of the affidavit are extracted herein below for reference: “……. 2. Whereas, assessee has to go to Counsel’s office for signing appeal papers on 20/01/2023 but due to severe spinal cord problem I was advised for bed rest from 25/11/2022 to till 20/06/2023. In view of this ailment filing of appeal papers slipped out of assessee mind. Whereas on 28th June, 2023, received a phone call from the Income Tax Office for payment of taxes and then realized that appeal is to be filed, accordingly, the appeal papers are signed on 30th June, 2023 and filed the same before the Registry ITAT on 3rd July, 2023 causing a delay of 157 days. 3. In the light of the above, it is respectfully submitted that this delay in filing the appeal belatedly was not as a result of any negligence or lack of diligence, but solely due to the unfortunate and unforeseen circumstances surrounding assessee health. I have attached the Doctor’s certificate in support of my petition. 4….. 5……”
On perusal of the explanation given by the assessee with respect to filing of the appeal before the Tribunal beyond the prescribed time limit, I find that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause ie., ill health of the assessee to file the appeal beyond the stipulated time. Therefore, I hereby condone the delay of 157 days in filing the appeal of the assessee before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits.
3 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee did not file his return of income for the AY 2015-16. The assessee’s date of birth is 29/05/1993 and thus at the beginning of FY 2014015, the assessee was just 21 years old. As per the information received from the Ld. ADIT (I&CI), Vijayawada, assessee purchased agricultural land at Ch. Pothepalli, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal on 08/10/2014 for a consideration of Rs. 25,74,000/- vide Document No. 4311/2014. Subsequently, notice U/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 31/03/2021 after obtaining necessary approval from the competent Authority and called for return. However, there was no compliance by the assessee. Thereafter, notices U/s. 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee on 21/11/2021, 04/01/2022 and 14/02/2022 along with detailed questionnaire to which there was no compliance by the assessee. Under these circumstances, the Ld. AO observed that there was no other option but to conclude the assessment on the basis of material available on records and in the manner provided U/s. 144 of the Act. Accordingly, the observed that during the FY 2014-15, Smt. Kalapala Rajani’s son, Sri Kalapala Venkat purchased 5.00 acres of dry land with palm oil gardens for a purchase consideration of Rs. 25,74,000/- vide Doc No. 4311/2014, dated 08/10/2014 and this property was
4 also sold to Smt. Kakumanu Seethadevi in the year 2015-16. The said land of about 5.72 acres was purchased from Kalidindi Nagalakshmi W/o. K. Murali Krishnam Raju. Therefore, the Ld. AO opined that the sources for purchase of agricultural land to the tune of Rs. 25,74,000/- in the hands of the assessee for the year consideration is remained undisclosed and unexplained. On this issue, after considering the elaborate submissions of the assessee, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee has clearly failed to explain the nature and source of payments made of Rs. 25,74,000/- during the FY 2014-15. Hence the Ld. AO treated the payment of Rs. 25,74,000/- as unexplained money and added the same to the total income of the assessee U/s. 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. Thus, the Ld.AO determined the assessed income of the assessee at Rs. 25,74,000/- and passed the assessment order U/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 18/03/2022. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC.
On appeal, since there was no response from the assessee with respect to the hearing notices issued and in the absence of any representation on behalf of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC passed the order ex-parte and dismissed the assessee’s appeal.
5 While dismissing the assessee’s appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC observed that the appellant has sought for physical hearing on 26/11/2022. In the era of Faceless Appeals, this is a request which cannot be granted. Total non-compliance on the part of the assessee to notices issued U/s. 250 dated 07/11/2022, 15/11/2022 and 22/11/2022 leaves with no option other than deciding the appeal ex-parte [para 2.2 of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC’s order]. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has also observed that the assessee has neither furnished any submissions in support of the ground of appeal during the appellate proceedings nor has he made any full and complete submissions before Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings. Taking into account the entire conspectus of the case, I see no reason to interfere with the findings of the Assessing Officer regarding the addition of Rs. 25,74,000/-……” [para 3.8 of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC’s order]. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal:
“1. The order of the Ld. AO is factually incorrect and is not tenable in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. 2. The Ld. AO misconceived himself in computing the disallowance of agriculture property purchased by the appellants name by the father and mother as per astrologically good for the family only even though the source of income borne by mother and father the AO
6 Gudiwada made addition of the entire amount into the tax net and levied the taxes including interest completed the assessment U/s. 143 of the Act and raised demand accordingly is totally unjust on part of the appellant. 3. The Ld. AO should have treated the entire amount of agricultural land price into the tax net even though it is below the value of SRO verifying by the income tax Department authorities respectively. 4. The Ld. AO, Gudiwada even though issued notice U/s. 148 of the Act there is no taxable income for the AY 2015-16 for which the zero return or NIL return has not filed by the appellant, the agriculture land purchased transaction already addition in the name of Kalapala Venkata Naga Siva Prasad (PAN: CAZPK9072K) same assessment year and same amount (Rs.25,74,000) also respectively. The all bank transactions are not leads to be the income, the purchase of agricultural land is not a socio crime even though the source explained from time to time respectively. Due to chronic medical grounds the appeal filed in delayed manner, the delay condonation letter separately annexured. 5. The appellant therefore prays the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Vizag Bench to kindly consider the facts of the case and do natural justice, grant relief and requested to delete the addition made by the AO and NFAC for the exemption of non-filer. 6. Any other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative [“Ld. AR”] submitted before me that the Ld. CIT (A)-NFAC has passed ex-parte order without providing proper opportunity to the assessee of being heard. It was therefore pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld CIT (A)-NFAC in order to provide one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard.
7 7. Ld. Departmental Representative [“Ld. DR”], on the other hand, vehemently opposed to the submissions of the Ld. AR and argued that several opportunities had been provided to the assessee however, on the given dates of hearing, neither the assessee nor his Representative has responded to the notices issued nor filed any details / submissions as called for by the Ld. CIT (A)-NFAC. It was further submitted that, under these circumstances, the Ld. CIT (A)-NFAC 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. CIT(A)-NFAC does not call for any interference.
I have heard the both the sides and carefully perused the materials available on record. On examining the facts of the case, I find that the Ld. CIT (A)-NFAC had posted the case on several occasions. However, there was no response on behalf of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC on the dates of hearing with regard to the details / submissions as called for by the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. Therefore, the Ld. CIT (A)-NAFC was left with no other option except to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte and dismissed the appeal by confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO. In this situation, I am of the view that the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC ought to have adjudicate the issues involved in the appeal on merits instead of dismissed the appeal ex-parte. Under these circumstances, considering
8 the issues involved in the appeal, as well as considering the prayer of the Ld. AR, and in the interest of justice, strictly following the principles of natural justice, I hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT (A)- NFAC in order to consider the appeal afresh and decide the case on merits by providing one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard in accordance with the principles of natural justice. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate before the Ld. CIT (A)-NFAC in the proceedings failing which the Ld. CIT (A)-NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available 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 17th October, 2024. Sd/- (दु�वू� आर.एल रे�ी) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) �याियकसद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated :17/10/2024 OKK - SPS आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत /Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. िनधा�रती/ The Assessee – Kalapala Venkat, S/o. KVNS Prasad, 5-107, Veeravalli, Bapulapadu (M), Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh-521130. 2. राज�व/The Revenue – Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gudiwada, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,
9 4.आयकर आयु� (अपील)/ The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, िवशाखापटणम/ DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam 6.गाड� फ़ाईल / Guard file आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER
Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam
