Sama Shekar Reddy,, Hanamkonda vs Assessee

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Director of M/s E-Mug Technologies Private Limited, filed his return of income for A.Y 2010-11 on 28.10.2010 admitting the total income of Rs.12,71,404. Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 6.3.2013 determining the total income at Rs.1,10,71,400.

3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT (A). The CIT (A) observed that in the instant case, 1st notice of hearing was issued on 25.8.2014 fixing the case for hearing on

Page 1 of 4 ITA No108 of 2015 Sama Shekhar Reddy Hyderabad.

15.09.2014 on which there was no response from the assessee. Second notice of hearing was issued on 22.09.2014 fixing the case for hearing on 10.10.2014. Again, no response came from the assessee. One more notice was issued on 20.10.2014 fixing the case for hearing on 3.11.2014. On that date, assessee filed an adjournment letter stating that the A.R. is out of station. Accordingly, the case was adjourned to 12.11.2014. Again on 12.11.2014, assessee's AR filed a letter wherein one more adjournment was sought. Seeking adjournments on one reason or other clearly showed that the assessee is not keen to pursue his own appeal. Thus, the ld CIT (A) adjudicated the appeal as under:

"5. By not appearing in appeal despite the multiple opportunities being provided, the principles of natural justice have not been followed at all by the assessee and reflect scant respect for the tax laws of the country".

4. The ld CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5. Aggrieved, assessee has filed appeal before us. The ld Counsel for the assessee Shri Chaitanya stated that an ex-parte order was passed by the ld CIT (A) and due to lack of legal guidance available to his assessee, though several opportunities were granted on various dates to the assessee, none appeared on the dates of hearing, nor any written submissions were filed. It was submitted that one more opportunity may be given to the assessee.

6. The ld DR stated that in cases where the assessee does not show interest to pursue the appeal, the Tribunal has inherent

Page 2 of 4 ITA No108 of 2015 Sama Shekhar Reddy Hyderabad.

power to dismiss the appeal and relied on the decision in the case of M/s. Chemipol vs. Union of India in Central Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009 and requested the Bench to confirm the order of the ld CIT (A).

7. We heard both the parties. It is a matter of regret that the assessee has not chosen to avail the multiple opportunities given to him and not bothered to appear on several occasions before the CIT (A), though notices were sent and adjournments were granted. The assessee has treated the tax law of the country not in a seriousness manner, but in a total casual manner. Considering the total non cooperation by the assessee, wastage of time by various authorities concerned with the case and other incidental expenditure inbuilt in the system of recovery of tax, we deem it fit to impose cost of Rs.5000/- which is to be paid to the Prime Minister's Relief fund, which shall be paid by the assessee within the end of this month. We set aside the appeal of the assessee to the file of the CIT (A) for fresh adjudication.

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, dated15th May, 2015.

Page 3 of 4

ITA No108 of 2015 Sama Shekhar Reddy Hyderabad.

Vnodan/sps Copy to:

1. Mr. Sama Sekhar Reddy, H.No.6-3 1219/1/6/1 Flat No.403 Umangar, Begumpet, Behind Life Style Hyderabad 500016

2. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(2) Hyhderabad

3. CIT(A) -III Hyderabad

4. CIT -II Hyderabad

5. The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad

6. Guard File

By Order

Page 4 of 4