VENKATA SINDHU PUSARLA,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 94/HYD/2020Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 June 2021AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex parte without confirming service of hearing notice and that the assessee could not be termed a wilful defaulter.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte. The assessee claimed exemption for awards received from Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Mittal Charities, and various individuals. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without properly adjudicating the grounds.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without proper adjudication and whether the awards received were eligible for exemption.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 154,Section 246A,Section 10(17A),Section 56(2)(vii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘B’ BENCH : Hyderabad

Before: Shri S.S. GODARA & Shri L.P. SAHU

Hearing: 13/05/2021

Date of Hearing : 13/05/2021 Date of Pronouncement : 25 /06/2021 O R D E R PER S.S. GODARA, J.M. This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2017-18 arises against the CIT(A)-6 Hyderabad’s order dated 12..12.2019 passed in case no.10768/2018-19 involving proceedings u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short ‘the Act’].

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

The assessee has raised the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal.

1.

The CIT (A) - 6 have erred in dismissing the appeal filed before him u/s 246A stating that the appeal is not maintainable as the assessee have also opted to file a petition ul s 154 in respect of mistakes apparent on record.

2.

The CIT (A) - 6 should have granted adjournment on the application of assesse for adjournment of the hearing as the assessee was pursuing the petition u/s 154 filed before ACIT - 10(1), instead of disposing the same, ex parte.

3 The CIT(A) - 6 erred by not allowing exemption with respect to the awards amounting Rs. 79,20,000/- received from Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (a government body). Such awards are exempt u/s 10(17 A).

4.

The CIT (A) - 6 erred by not allowing exemption with respect to the award" amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- received from Mittal Charities. Such awards are exempt u/s 56(2)(vii).

5.

The CIT(A) - 6 erred by not allowing exemption with respect to the awards amounting to Rs. 1,64,29,704/- received from Various other Individuals. Such awards are not treated as incomes as discussed in the Judicial Pronouncements in the case of Shri Abhinav Bindra Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (ITA No. 2219/Del/2013).

2. It transpired at the outset that the CIT(A)’s lower appellate order under challenge determining assessee’s sec. 143(1) r.w.s. 154 rectification; has been passed ex parte without even indicating the clinching fact as to whether the assessee had been actually served the relevant hearing notice or not qua the last date of hearing i.e. 21.10.2019. We also notice from page 3 paras 4.1 and 4.2 of the CIT(A)’s order that assessee’s lower appeal before the CIT(A) had been fixed for hearing on 30th September, 2019 and 21st October, 2019 whereas she has appeared at the first instance as well The assessee could not be termed as a wilful defaulter in lower appellate proceedings therefore. We accordingly restore her instant substantive grievance back to CIT(A) for his appropriate adjudication as per law within 3 effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly.

This aassessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in Open Court on 25/06/2021.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →