SREE RAMAKRISHNA VENDRAPU,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

The grounds raised by the assessee reads as under :

Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee did not file his return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16. The learned assessing officer (“ ld. AO”) came to know from the ITBA portal that during the A.Y.2015-16 the assessee carried out financial transactions amounting to Rs.1,56,06,787/-. Hence the ld.AO initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the income tax Act, 1961 (“ the Act”) and a notice u/s 148 dated 27.03.2021 was issued and served to the assessee requiring him to submit the return of income within 30 days from the service of the notice. In response to the notice, no return of income was filed by the assessee. Thereafter, notice u/s ITA 235 of 2024 Sree Ramakrishna Vendrapu 142(1) dated 20.09.2021 was issued but again, no compliance was made. Thus, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and assessed the total income at Rs.1,53,38,820/-.

Feeling aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A) also the assessee did not respond in spite issue of many notices. Finally, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:

Feeling aggrieved with such order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

The learned AR submitted that the assessee is a salaried employee during the AY under consideration. During the said period the assessee due to certain personal exigencies, underwent domestic problems which continued thereafter for a couple of years too. Due to the said problems the Assessee could not make compliances before the revenue authorities. Learned AR further submitted that the Assessee being a salaried employee substantial part of the tax liability was already discharged by way of TDS done by the employer and the same was not considered by the ld. AO while passing the order. This resulted in such a huge tax demand in the case. Moreover, the Ld.AO treated the salary income, credit card payments, sale of vehicle and sale of land as undisclosed income. The learned AR further submitted that the assessee does not stand to gain by allowing the appeal to be disposed of without any documentary evidence being produced, and it is only due to the reasons beyond the control of the assessee, the assessee could

Per contra, learned DR placed heavy reliance on the orders of the revenue authorities , and submitted that sufficient opportunity has already been given by the authorities, but the assessee failed to avail the same. He opposed the grant of further opportunity to the assessee.

We have heard the rival submissions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. It could be seen from the orders of the authorities that the assessee failed to produce the details with regards to the financial transactions amounting to Rs.1,56,06,787/- carried out during the A.Y.2015-16, which resulted in passing the orders without consideration thereof. It is a fact that the assessee does not stand to gain by not producing such documents. Be that as it may, now that the assessee is ready to produce all such documentary evidence in support of his contentions and get the matter disposed of on merits. The highest that would happen by allowing an opportunity to the assessee is that a cause would be decided on merits. With this view of the matter, we are of the view that fresh opportunity should be given to the assessee and, accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for passing a fresh order on merits after affording the ITA 235 of 2024 Sree Ramakrishna Vendrapu opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Grounds of appeal are answered accordingly.