ATTOONOORI VENKATA REDDY,KONDURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri K.Siva Ram Kumar, AR प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent by : Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR सुनवधई की तधरीख/ Date of Hearing : 04.06.2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member : Condonation of Delay : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1056424145(1) dated 22.09.2023 arising out of order passed u/s 144 r.w.s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 31.12.2019 with the delay of 72 days. The Attoonoori Venkata Reddy, Konduru assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay, submitting that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated 22.09.2023 was served on the assessee on the same day and the appeal against the order ought to have been filed on or before 21.11.2023, but the assessee could file the appeal only on 29.01.2024 i.e. with a delay of 72 days due to the fact that the appeal was filed by a chartered accountant, Mr.Karthikeyan(AR) who sought adjournment. By the time the NFAC sent a subsequent hearing notice dated 08.09.2023, after granting adjournment, the AR left for USA on 30.08.2023 and thus the assessee had no communication about the hearing notices sent after July 2023 and they remained unanswered. The assessee came to know of the NFAC order of dismissal of appeal for non- response only when the income tax department had asked the assessee to pay the taxes and without further delay, the assessee filed the appeal. The assessee submitted that the appeal could not be filed in time, in view of the above serious difficulty which was beyond the control of the assessee. The assessee, therefore, pleaded to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.

before dismissal ex-parte.

2. In the facts and circumstances of case, learned CIT(Appeals) ought to have considered the material evidences on the assessment record (uploaded to the portal) to show that the appellant and his family owns Ac.24.11cts., i.e. a large extent of agricultural land and the cash deposits explained before the learned AO as sourced from the agricultural income were duly substantiated and the addition made was unjustified on the facts borne out by the assessment record.

3. The appellant’s appeal against before NFAC was filed by a Chartered Accountant (Mr.K.Karthikeyan, CA) and the hearing communications in that respect had been set by NFAC to the AR in July 2023, who requested for an adjournment. The adjournment was granted and later, when the subsequent notice dt.08.09.2023 was Attoonoori Venkata Reddy, Konduru sent to the AR, the AR left for studies in the USA on 30.08.23 and has been there even now and thus the appellant had no communication about the Hearing Notices sent after July 2023 and they remained unanswered, the appellant prays for re-consideration of his appeal by the first appellate authority in view of the aforesaid exceptional circumstances.

4. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any Ground of Appeal.

6. The only contention of the Ld.AR is that the assessee and his family owns Ac.24.11 cts agricultural land and the cash deposits were explained before the AO as sourced from the agricultural income. But the AO, made addition and even the Ld.CIT(A) without considering the material evidences substantiating the cash deposits made, as sourced from the agricultural income, upheld the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte for non response for the reasons beyond the control of the assessee, without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard. He, therefore, pleaded to afford an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) in the interest of justice.

7. Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that the assessee was given sufficient opportunities, but the assessee did not avail the same to controvert the findings of the revenue authorities with cogent material evidences. The Ld.DR therefore submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) is justified Attoonoori Venkata Reddy, Konduru in upholding the addition made by the AO. She, therefore, pleaded to uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee.

8. Wehave heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. It is evident that the assessment in the case of the assessee was completed u/s 144 of the Act and the income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.57,80,368/- which was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A).The only contention of the Ld.AR is that the assessee was not given sufficient time to substantiate his claim with evidences and prayed for an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) in the interest of justice. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in order to meet the principles of natural justice, we are inclined to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to afford an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to adhere to the notices issued and cooperate with the revenue authorities during the proceedings.

Attoonoori Venkata Reddy, Konduru

Order pronounced in the open court on 20th June,2024. (एस बालाकृष्णन) (दुव्वूरुआर.एलरेड्डी) (S.BALAKRISHNAN) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) लेखासदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBERन्याधयकसदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 20.06.2024 L.Rama, SPS