SREE SRIPURAM ENTERPRISES,TIRUPATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(3), TIRUPATI

– A.Y 2012-13 2. At the outset it was noticed that the assessee has filed this appeal with a delay of 180 days. The assessee has filed a condonation petition and explained the reasons for this delay. The learned DR has no objection if the appeal is admitted for adjudication. After considering the contents of the condonation petition, the delay of 180 days in filing of this appeal is condoned.

The grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal reads as under:

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a firm and an ITC dealer, filed its return of income for the A.Y 2012- 13 on 30.09.2012 electronically declaring total income of Rs.12,72,971/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under the CASS. After issuance of statutory notices, the Assessing Officer examined the details. The Assessing Officer gave ample opportunity to the assessee to file details and reply the show cause notices issued. However, the assessee failed to file the complete details and did not reply to the show cause notices. Finally, the Assessing Officer was constrained to pass an order u/s 144 of the Act and made a total demand of Rs.1,48,38,752/-.

In appeal, the learned CIT (A) NFAC, after considering the written submission filed by the assessee and observed as under:

Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The learned Counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that there was a failure on the part of the assessee in not filing details and written submissions which was due to certain unavoidable reasons and beyond the control of the assessee. He further submitted that given an opportunity, the assessee would be in a position to submit the requisite details before the learned Assessing Officer.

The learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that despite issuance of several notices, the assessee failed to comply with the statutory notices issued by the Department and failed to submit details along with written submission for the impugned A.Y. Hence, the appeal filed by the assessee be dismissed.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the AO and the learned CIT (A). We find the AO in the instant case made addition of Rs. 1,48,38,752/- on the ground that the assessee failed to comply with the statutory notices issued by the Department and non- furnishing of written submission. We find the assessee failed to furnish necessary details before the lower authorities despite issuance of several notices. This speaks volume and careless attitude of the assessee for the statutory notices issued by the Department. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the assessee, given an opportunity, the assessee would be in a position to file the details to substantiate his case. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the learned Assessing Officer with a direction to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case. Looking to the careless attitude of the assessee to the statutory notices issued by the lower authorities for non-compliance, the assessee is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- to the State Legal Aid Services Department of the Hon'ble Telangana High Court. The assessee is directed to submit the payment slip to the Registry, ITAT Hyderabad Benches within a period of 2 months from the date of this order. We hold and direct accordingly.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Since identical grounds have been raised by the assessee in all the remaining appeals, following similar reasonings given in for the A.Y 2012-13, the appeals in ITA Nos.145 to 148/Hyd/2024 are also restored to the file of the learned Assessing Officer for affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

To sum up, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.