Upendra Kumar (Indl), Hyd, Hyderabad vs Assessee

2 ITA.Nos.535, 539, 540, 546 & 547/Hyd/2015 Mr. Upendra Kumar (Ind.), Hyderabad

2. The assessee in the present case is an individual. A search and seizure action under section 132 was conducted in the Goud group of cases on 15.09.2008. During the course of said action, certain incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found and seized. Consequently, notices under section 153C were issued by the A.O. on 08.10.2010 requiring the assessee to furnish his returns of income, inter alia, for the years under consideration within 15 days of the receipt of the notices. No returns of income however, were filed by the assessee in response to the said notices either within the stipulated time or even before the completion of assessments by the A.O. under section 144 read with section 153C on 30.12.2010. For this non-compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued under section 153C, penalty proceeding under section 271F were initiated by the A.O. and since the assessee failed to furnish any explanation in response to the show cause notices issued during the course of the said penalty proceedings, the A.O. proceeded to impose penalty of Rs.5000 under section 271F, inter alia, for A.Ys. 2007-08 and 2008-09.

2.1. During the course of assessment proceedings for the years under consideration, notices issued by the A.O. under section 142(1) and 143(2) were also remained un-complied with by the assessee as a result of which, the A.O. was left with no option but to complete the assessments for the years under consideration to the best of his judgment under section 144 read with section 153C 3 ITA.Nos.535, 539, 540, 546 & 547/Hyd/2015 Mr. Upendra Kumar (Ind.), Hyderabad

of the Act. For this non-compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued under section 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act, the A.O. initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(b) of the Act and since the assessee failed to offer any explanation in response to the show cause notices issued during the course of penalty proceedings, penalty of Rs.10000 per year was imposed by the A.O. under section 271(1)(b) for all the three years under consideration i.e., A.Y. 2003-04, 2007-08 and 2008-09.

2.2. The penalties imposed by the A.O. under section 271F for A.Ys. 2007-08 and 2008-09 and under section 271(1)(b) for A.Ys. 2003-04, 2007-08 and 2008-09 were challenged by the assessee in the appeals filed before the Ld. CIT(A). There was, however, no compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) fixing the appeals of the assessee for hearing on two occasions. Keeping in view of this non-compliance on the part of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to dispose of the appeals of the assessee exparte confirming the penalties imposed by the A.O. under section 271F and 271(1)(b) for the years under consideration. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred these appeals before the Tribunal.

3. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the appeals filed by the assessee for the 4 ITA.Nos.535, 539, 540, 546 & 547/Hyd/2015 Mr. Upendra Kumar (Ind.), Hyderabad

years under consideration challenging the penalties imposed by the A.O. under section 271F and 271(1)(b) were dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) by his impugned orders for the following reasons :

"During the course of appellate proceedings, the case for fixed for hearing on 03.02.2015. A letter received from the office of Deva & Co., requesting for long adjournment due to Sri Davaraju Reddy, CA, Deva & Co., is contesting for, vice president and he is busy. Therefore, the case was adjourned to 18.02.2015. This is a simple case of penalty levied for non- appearance. The appellant has failed to cooperate in any manner with regard to submission of information, the undersigned complete the appellate order exparte basing on the information available on record. Since all the Asst. Years from 2003-04 to 2009-10, the issues are similar, so I have made the common appellate order for the sake of convenience."

4. At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the above reasons given by the Ld. CIT(A) for dismissing the appeals of the assessee exparte and submitted that only two opportunities of hearing were given by the Ld. CIT(A) fixing the appeals of the assessee for hearing on 03.02.2015 and 18.02.2015. He has submitted that application was duly filed by the assessee seeking adjournment of the hearing fixed on 03.02.2015 and it was only on 13.02.2015 that there was non-appearance on the part of the assessee as his Authorised Representative could not remain present for some unavoidable reasons. He has contended that the Ld. CIT(A) thus has dismissed the appeals of the assessee 5 ITA.Nos.535, 539, 540, 546 & 547/Hyd/2015 Mr. Upendra Kumar (Ind.), Hyderabad

exparte without giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard and since the assessee was not well during the course of penalty proceedings, he has not got an effective opportunity to offer his explanation for non- compliance to the notices issued under section 153C as well as 142(1) and 143(2). He has urged that one more opportunity may therefore be given to the assessee to put forth his case by offering his explanation for such non- compliance.

5. Keeping in view of the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, we consider it fair and proper and in the interest of justice to give one more opportunity to the assessee to offer his explanation for the non-compliance of notices under section 153C as well as 142(1) and 143(2). Accordingly, the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalties imposed by the A.O. under section 271F and 271(1)(b) for the years under consideration are set aside and the matter is remitted back to him for disposing of the appeals of the assessee on merit, after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard. As undertaken by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing, the assessee shall comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) and extend full cooperation in order to enable the Ld. CIT(A) to dispose of the matter expeditiously.

6. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

6 ITA.Nos.535, 539, 540, 546 & 547/Hyd/2015 Mr. Upendra Kumar (Ind.), Hyderabad

Order pronounced in the open Court on 22.07.2015.

Sd/- Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACOUNTANT MEMBER

Hyderabad, Dated 22nd July, 2015

VBP/-

Copy to :

1. Mr. Upendra Kumar (Ind.), Hyderabad

C/o. M/s. Ch. G. Krishna Murthy & Co., Chartered Accountants, 133/1, Prendarghast Road, Secunderabad-500 003.

2. The DCIT, Central Circle-7, Hyderabad.

3. CIT(A)-I, Guntur

7. Pr.CIT, Central, Hyderabad

8. D.R. ITAT 'B' Bench, Hyderabad.

9. Guard File