SRINIVASA CHAKRAVARTHI RAJU GOKARAJU, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 16(1), HYDERABAD

Coming to the assessee’s first and foremost appeal ITA No.816/Hyd/2015, learned counsel stated at the outset that he no more wishes to press for the same keep in mind the fact that necessary relief already stands granted to him in Section 154 rectification proceedings. Ordered accordingly. This first and foremost appeal ITA No.816/Hyd/2015 is dismissed as not pressed therefore in foregoing terms.

We advert to the assessee’s next two appeals ITA Nos.1068 & 1069/Hyd/2016 and notice that the CIT(A)’s corresponding lower appellate order(s) under challenge; affirming the Assessing Officer’s action disallowing agricultural income claim u/s.10(1) of the Act followed by various other similar issues, has been passed ex-parte.

The Revenue sought to highlight the fact in CIT(A)’s lower appellate proceedings in para 4 that he had issued several notices to the assessee. We note that there is no indication at all in the said para 4 and 3; respectively that the CIT(A) hearing notices had been actually served on the assessee. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to restore the instant latter twin appeals Nos.1068 & 1069/Hyd/2016 back to the CIT(A) for his afresh appropriate adjudication as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing. It is made clear that the assessee or his learned authorised representative shall appear before the CIT(A) on or before 30-11-2021 with all the relevant evidence; at his own risk and responsibility only, to be followed by three effective opportunities of hearing. It is further clarified that any failure in necessary factual verification of the assessee’s evidence

To sum-up, the assessee’s first and foremost appeal ITA No. 816/Hyd/2015 is dismissed as not pressed and the latter twin appeals ITA Nos.1068 & 1069/Hyd/2016 are allowed for statistical purposes. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.