Murali Krishna Gopi, Hyderabad, ... vs Assessee
- CitationITA No.144 of 2015 Murali Krishna Gopi Hyderabad.
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an appellate authority has disposed of an appeal on the merits in the assessee's absence after repeated non-appearance, and the assessee's representative has shown a bona fide reason and undertaken to attend with the relevant material, the Tribunal may in the interests of justice set aside the matter to the first appellate authority to afford the assessee one further opportunity of being heard and to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT (A) II, Hyderabad dated 29.09.2014 relating to A.Y 2010-11.
2. Briefly stated, the assessee herein is an individual deriving income from salary and filed return of income for A.Y 2010-11 on 06.07.2010 admitting income of Rs.5,71,798. He had income from salary and other sources. The scrutiny assessment was completed determining the income at Rs.31,63,810 by making the following additions:
(i) Unexplained cash deposited in Bank A/c Rs.25,91,000
(ii) Interest Income Rs. 1,008
Page 1 of 4 ITA No.144 of 2015 Murali Krishna Gopi Hyderabad.
3. The details of posting in the case are as under:
Vide letter dated 24.04.2014 the case was posted for hearing on 21.05.2014 and the said notice was served on the assessee on 28.04.2014. None appeared on the said date. However, an adjournment letter was filed by the A.R stating that the written submissions are under preparation. The case was adjourned to 05.06.2014 and the same was communicated to the A.R. Again none appeared on 5.6.2014 and adjournment letter was filed on the same date stating that information required for representing the matter could not be collected from the C.A who was out of station. The case was adjourned to 29.07.2014 as requested by the AR. None appeared on 29.07.2014.
The case was posted for hearing again on 20.08.2014, none appeared and adjournment was sought for".
4. Since there was no response from the assessee, appeal was decided on merits by the ld CIT (A) with the help of the information submitted by the assessee during assessment proceedings.
5. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us and preferred the following the grounds:
"1. The order of CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law.
2. The CIT (A) erred in disposing of the appeal without providing proper opportunity to the appellant particularly when the appellant filed adjournment letter filed before the CIT (A).
3. The CIT (A) erred in confirming the order passed by the AO without considering any of the evidences filed before the AO and without considering any of the grounds raised before the CIT (A).
4. The CIT (A) erred in confirming the additions on account deposits made into bank account amounts received from the following persons:
Page 2 of 4 ITA No.144 of 2015 Murali Krishna Gopi Hyderabad.
a) G. Gangadhara Rao - Rs.3 lakhs b) Ayyappa Raju - Rs.3 lakhs c) Smt. Gopi Suryakantham- Rs.6 lakhs d) Smt. G.J.Anitha Devi - Rs.5 lakhs
5. The CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO of Rs.25,91,000 on account of unexplained income of the appellant.
6. The CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal and confirming the assessment order".
6. In Ground No.1 and 2, assessee has brought to our notice that the CIT (A) has disposed off the appeal without providing proper opportunity to the assessee, even when the assessee filed adjournment letter before the CIT (A), the CIT (A) had not granted the time on 20.08.2014. The ld Counsel for the assessee argued before us that the CIT (A) has not considered any evidences filed before the AO nor was the CIT (A) made aware of the facts as the ld Counsel did not represent before the CIT (A). It was stated that the CIT (A) ignored the adjournment letter and proceeded to decide the case on merits ex parte ignoring the input which the assessee would have placed before the CIT (A) had he been given an opportunity to represent..
7. We find that the CIT (A) was inclined to dismiss the assessee's appeal as on various occasions as pointed out by the ld CIT (A), none appeared for the hearing posted on 21.5.2014 to 5.6.14, 29.7.14. The CIT (A) was of the opinion that the assessee had utter disregard for tax administration and rightly so. However, in the interest of justice, since the ld Counsel has now pleaded that an opportunity should be given to him to present
Page 3 of 4 ITA No.144 of 2015 Murali Krishna Gopi Hyderabad.
his case and has undertaken to appear before the CIT (A) with all the details, we set aside the issue to the file of the CIT (A) to give the assessee one more opportunity and decide the issue in accordance with the law.
8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 15th May, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/- (P.M. Jagtap) (Asha Vijayaraghavan) Accountant Member Judicial Member
Hyderabad, dated 15th May, 2015.
Vnodan/sps Copy to:
1. Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Flat 409, Metro Residency, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hydferabad
2. Income Tax Officer Ward 12(1) Hyderabad
3. CIT(A)-II Hyderabad
4. CIT -I Hyderabad
5. The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad
6. Guard File
By Order
Page 4 of 4
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free