Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “B-SMC”, HYDERABAD
ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-9, Hyderabad in appeal No. 10006/CIT(A)-9, Hyd/2017-18, dated 14/06/2019 passed U/s. 143(1) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2016-17.
The assessee has raised three grounds in its appeal and they are extracted herein below for reference:-
“1. The order of the Hon’ble CIT(A) in so far as it is against the appellant, is contrary to the facts of the case and provisions of law. 2. The Hon’ble Commissioner is not justified in sustaining the disallowance of expenditure of Rs.
19,43,673/- incurred for promoting higher education. The Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax should have appreciated that the Wakf is entitled to the deduction of the expenditure of Rs. 19,43,673/- as it was set up only to promote higher education.
The Commissioner of Income Tax should have appreciated that the appellant is also entitled to exemption U/s. 11 even because the application seeking registration U/s. 12A of the Income Tax Act is pending before the CIT (E) for adjudication. Therefore, the Wakf is entitled to the deductions permissible U/s. 11 / 11(1) of the Act.”
3. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before us stating that the Ld. CIT (A) has passed ex-parte order without providing proper opportunity to the assessee of being heard. It was therefore pleaded 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 its Representative appeared before the Ld. CIT (A). 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.
I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. On examining the facts of the case, I find merit in the submissions of the Ld. DR. It appears that before the Ld. CIT (A) none appeared on behalf of the assessee on the given dates of hearing. Therefore, the Ld. CIT (A) was left with no other option except to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte. In this situation, I do not find much strength in the arguments advanced by the ld. AR. However, considering the issues involved in the appeal as well as the prayer of the Ld. AR, in the interest of justice, I hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT (A) in order to consider the appeal de novo and decide the issue 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.
Before parting, it is worthwhile to mention that this order is pronounced after 90 days of hearing the appeal, which is though against the usual norms, we find it appropriate, taking into consideration of the extra-ordinary situation in the light of the lock-down due to Covid-19 pandemic. While doing so, I have relied in the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. JSW Ltd. In and 6103/M/2018 for AY 2013-14 order dated 14th May 2020.
Pronounced in the open Court on the 05th July, 2021.