SUDHAKARA RAO KALAKUNTLA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1274/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 September 2021AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the revenue's submission that the assessee had multiple opportunities but failed to appear or provide information. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh consideration on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against an ex-parte order by the AO and CIT(A) was heard. The assessee argued for a fresh hearing due to lack of opportunity, while the revenue contended that sufficient opportunities were given but the assessee failed to appear or provide details.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the AO and CIT(A) were justified due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of cooperation, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “B-SMC”, HYDERABAD

For Respondent: Smt. M. Padma, DR
Hearing: 30/08/2021Pronounced: 01/09/2021

ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-6, Hyderabad in appeal No.10704/2018- 19/B2/CIT(A)-6, dated 20/06/2019 passed U/s. 144 r.w.s 147 and U/s. 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2011-12.

2.

The assessee has raised four grounds in his appeal and they are extracted herein below for reference:-

1.

“1. The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming that the property sold was in the individual capacity of the assessee and not in the status of HUF, thus confirming the order of the A.O. and thus determining the capital gains at Rs. 12,22,030/-.

3.

The Appellate Commissioner ought to have seen that there was enough material on record to prove that the property sold was HUF property.

4. Any other grounds which the appellant may urge either at or before the date of hearing.”

3. Before me, at the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. A.O. had passed ex-parte order U/s. 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has also dismissed the appeal ex-parte 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. A.O. 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 his Representative appeared before the Ld. A.O. It was further submitted that the assessee did not appear even before the Ld. CIT(A) at the time of hearing. Therefore, the Ld. Revenue Authorities had no other option but to pass ex-parte orders based on the materials available on record. Hence, it was pleaded that the orders passed by the Ld. Revenue Authorities do not call for any interference.

4.

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) and the Ld. A.O. had posted the case on several occasions. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the Ld.AO as well as before the Ld. CIT(A). Moreover, the assessee did not furnish the details called for by the Ld. Revenue Authorities. Therefore, the Ld. Revenue Authorities were left with no other option except to pass ex-parte orders and adjudicate the appeal based on the material available on record. 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. A.O 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. Revenue Authorities in their proceedings failing which the Ld. Revenue Authorities 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.

5.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove.

Pronounced in the open Court on the 01st of September, 2021.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →