PREMALATHA KHINWASARA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the appeal was dismissed without proper consideration. While acknowledging the assessee's failure to appear before the CIT(A) on multiple occasions, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back for a fresh consideration on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine without considering submissions. The assessee argued that they were not given a proper hearing, while the revenue contended that sufficient opportunities were provided and the assessee failed to appear.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the assessee's submissions and whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunities for hearing.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 250(6),Section 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “A-SMC”, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONYSmt. Premalatha
ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-7, Hyderabad in appeal No.0150/CIT(A)-7/2016-17, dated 27/04/2018 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 and U/s. 250(6) of the Act for the AY: 2008-09.
The assessee has raised six grounds in her appeal and they are extracted herein below for reference:-
“1. The order of the CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) assessing Officer erred in issuing notice U/s. 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act. 3. The Order of the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer without considering the appellant submissions adding an amount of Rs. 5,95,490/- U/s. 68 of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming action of the Assessing Officer in treating the said transaction U/s. 68 of the Act. 5. The order of the Ld CIT (A) in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in determining the total income at Rs. 12,59,440/- as against the income admitted at Rs. 6,63,950/- 6. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.”
Before me, at the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine without considering the submissions of the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. AR prayed that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) in order to provide one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Ld. DR, on the other hand vehemently opposed to the submissions of the Ld. AR and argued that sufficient opportunities had been provided to the assessee however, on the given dates of hearing, neither the assessee nor her Representative appeared before the Ld. CIT(A) at the time of hearing. Therefore, the Ld. CIT (A) had no other option but to pass ex-parte order. based on the materials available on record. Hence, it was pleaded that the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) does not call for any interference.
On examining the facts of the case and the materials placed on record, I find merit in the submissions of the Ld. DR. The Ld. CIT (A) had posted the case on four occasions ie, 9/10/2017; 8/11/2017; 15/3/2018 and 13/4/2018. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). Moreover, the assessee did not furnish any details in support of the grounds raised before the Ld. CIT (A). Therefore, the Ld. CIT (A) was left with no other option except to pass order in limine. However, considering the issues involved in the appeal, in the interest of justice, I hereby remit the entire matter back to the file of Ld. CIT (A) in order to consider the appeal afresh on merits by providing one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate before the Ld. CIT (A) in the proceedings failing which the Ld. CIT (A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials on the record. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove.
Pronounced in the open Court on the 01st September, 2021.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026