What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission regarding lack of proper opportunity and, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh consideration. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the revenue authorities.

The assessee's appeal concerned a disallowance of Rs. 9,56,520/- towards house tax payment. The CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal but directed the AO to verify the genuineness of the house tax payment. The assessee argued that proper opportunities for hearing were not provided by both the AO and CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity of being heard by the lower authorities. Whether the genuineness of the house tax payment requires further verification.

S.Chintakunta Munaiah Ramesh vs DCIT | ITAT Hyderabad 2021

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao

For Respondent: Shri DJP Anand, DR

Hearing: 15/06/2021Pronounced: 24/06/2021

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-9, Hyderabad in appeal No. 10374/CIT(A)-9, Hyd/2018-19, dated 21/3/2019 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2013-14.

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

“(1). The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law.

(2) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have allowed the ground of appeal with regards to the disallowance of Rs. 9,56,520/- instead of directing the A.O. to verify further. (3) The appellant may add, alter or modify any other points to the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual e- filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2013-14 on 31/3/2015 admitting total income of Rs. 64,46,510/-. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s.143(2), 142(1) and 143(2) r.w.s 129 of the Act were served upon the assessee. Subsequently, the Ld. A.O. completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act vide his order dated 15/03/2016 wherein the Ld. A.O. made certain additions viz., (i) Disallowance of House Tax paid amounting to Rs.9,56,520/-; (ii) Disallowance of improvement cost amounting to Rs. 6,36,471/- and (iii) Addition in respect of business income amounting to Rs. 1,04,502/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. A.O., the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). On appeal, before the Ld. CIT(A) none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the written submissions of the assessee partly allowed the assessee’s appeal and grated relief to the assessee in respect of disallowance of Rs.6,36,471/- and addition of Rs. 1,04,502/-. In respect of addition of Rs. 9,56,520/- made by the Ld. A.O. towards payment of House Taxes, the Ld. CIT(A) directed the Ld. A.O. to verify the genuineness of the payment of House Tax and grant relief. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the us on the issue of addition of Rs. 9,56,520/- made by the Ld. AO towards municipal taxes paid.

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 further submitted that the Ld. A.O. had also not provided proper opportunity to the assessee to furnish the details in support of the Municipal Taxes paid. Therefore, the Ld AR pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. AO in order to consider the issue afresh and 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 by the Ld. CIT(A) however, on the given dates of hearing, neither the assessee nor his Representative appeared before the Ld. CIT (A). Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) had no other option but to pass 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.

We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. On examining the facts of the case, We find merit in the submissions of the Ld. DR. It appears that the Ld. CIT (A) had posted the case on several occasions. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the CIT(A) on the dates of hearing. Therefore, the Ld. CIT (A) was left with no other option except to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte based on the material available on record. In this situation, We do not find much strength in the arguments advanced by the ld. AR. However, considering the nature of issue involved in the appeal as well as the prayer of the Ld. AR and since the Ld.CIT(A) does not have powers to remand, in the interest of justice, We hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld. AO in order to consider the issue afresh and decide the same on merit. At the same breath, We 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 orders 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 24th June, 2021.

S.CHINTAKUNTA MUNAIAH RAMESH,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments