Snigdha Aare, Hyderabad v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Hyderabad

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B - SMC HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.875 & 876/HYD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 13 & 2013 - 14 SNIGDHA AARE HYDERABAD. PAN: ASHPA 9875 A VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 12(1) HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SMT. S. SANDHYA REVENUE BY: SMT. KOMALI KRISHNA DR DATE OF HEARING: 05/11/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05/11/2019 ORDER THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 1 HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NOS. 0235 &0191/2017 - 18/ITO WARD - 12(1)/CIT(A) - 1/HYD/2018 - 19 DATED 18/3/2019 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 & U/S. 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.YS 2012 - 13 AND 2013 - 14. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN HER APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 2012 - 13: 1) THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2) THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN DECIDING THE APPEAL EX - PARTE WITHOUT PROVIDING FURTHER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. 2 3) THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U / S 147 OF THE I.T. ACT. 4) THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THE ORDER PASSED U / S 147 IS NOT VALID . 5) THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT ALLOWING THE COST INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT TOWARDS THE LAND DEVELOPMENT INSPITE OF THE DOCUMENTARY PROOF AVAILABLE. 6) THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REJECTING THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U / S 54F OF RS.22 11 164 / - . 7) ANY OTHER GROUND OR GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING . 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN HER APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 2013 - 14: 1) THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2) THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN DECIDING THE APPEAL EX - PARTE WITHOUT PROVIDING FURTHER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. 3) THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U / S 147 OF THE I.T. ACT. 4) THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THE ORDER PASSED U / S 147 IS NOT VALID . 5) THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT ALLOWING THE COST INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT TOWARDS THE LAND DEVELOPMENT INSPITE OF THE DOCUMENTARY PROOF AVAILABLE. 6) THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REJECTING THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U / S 54F OF RS. 14 66 091/ - . 7) ANY OTHER GROUND OR GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING . 4. AT THE OUTSET LD. AR BRIEFLY NARRATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD DISMISSED BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT NEITHER APPEARED NOR SUBMITTED CONDONATION OF DELAY OR ANY DETAILS . HOWEVER LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT 3 DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFERED ACUTE GASTROENTERITIS AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION ON THE DATES OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PETITION SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY AND THE SAME WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISSED THE APPEALS. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE TO THE LD CIT (A) IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PURSUE THE APPEAL S . THE LD DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE AN D H ER REPRESENTATIVE FAILED TO COOPERATE WITH THE LD. CIT (A) IN HIS PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WAS FORCED TO PASS THE ORDER BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. IT WAS THEREFORE REQUESTED THAT THE ORDERS OF THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES MAY BE CO NFIRMED. 5 . I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. ON PERUSING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) IT IS APPARENT THAT INITIALLY THERE WAS A DELAY OF THREE DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND THE LD. C IT(A) CONSIDERED THE ASSESSEES CONDONATION DELAY PETITION AND TAKEN UP THE APPEALS FOR HEARING. HOWEVER ON THE SUBSEQUENT DATES OF HEARING NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HER REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) ON MANY OCCASIONS. HOWEVER ON THE L AST DATE OF HEARING THE LD. AR APPEARED 4 BUT DID NOT FURNISH ANY MATERIALS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CASE. THEREFORE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS AND PROPER REPRESENTATION THE LD. CIT (A) WAS FORCED TO PASS ORDERS . HOWEVER I FIND THAT THE LD. CIT (A) THOUGH HAS CONDONED THE DELAY DID NOT PASS ORDERS ON MERITS. THEREFORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE I HEREBY REMIT BOTH THE APPEALS BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT (A) IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL S AFRESH BY PROVIDING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE O F BEING HEARD AND DECIDE THE APPEALS ON MERITS . AT THE SAME BREATH I ALSO HEREBY CAUTION THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTLY COOPERATE BEFORE THE REVENUE IN THEIR PROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH THE LD. CIT (A) SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER ON MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON THE RECORD. 6 . IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05 TH NOVEMBER 2019. SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD DATED: 05 TH NOVEMBER 2019 OKK COPY TO: - 1) SNIGDHA AARE FLAT NO.403 ANU RESIDENCY KONDAPUR HYDERABAD - 500084. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 12(1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN BASHEERBAGH HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT(A) - 1 HYDERABAD 4) THE PR. CIT - 1 HYDERABAD 5 5) THE DR ITAT HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE