What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no indication that hearing notices were served on the assessee for the ex-parte CIT(A) order. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The assessee received Rs. 3,25,40,208/- from APIIC, which the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) treated as income. The assessee contended it was reimbursement of expenses properly accounted for. The CIT(A)'s order was passed ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the amount received as reimbursement of expenses was wrongly treated as income, and the validity of an ex-parte appellate order without proper service of notice.

Tsi Business Parks (Hyderabad)… vs DCIT | ITAT Hyderabad 2021

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

This assessee’s appeal for AY.2011-12 arises from the CIT(A)-2, Hyderabad’s order dated 29-07-2016 passed in case No.0181/2014-15, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

The assessee has proposed the following substantive ground in the instant appeal :

“1. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the Assessing Officer having accepted the fact that the amount of Rs. 3,25,40,208/- received from APIIC has been properly accounted for in the books, the addition may be deleted.

2. The CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer erred in law and facts of the case in considering reimbursement of expenses of Rs. 3,25,40,208/- received from APIIC as income and erroneously made addition of the same.

Your Appellant submits that the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer on suspicion, assumption, presumptions and surmises that added the amount of Rs.3,25,40,208/-, reflected in the Fonn26AS has to be considered as income, ignoring the fact that the amount has been received as reimbursement of expenses & properly recorded in the books of account”.

3. We notice with the able assistance of both the parties that the CIT(A)’s lower appellate order under challenge affirming the Assessing Officer’s action as sole issue of amount of Rs.3,25,40,208/- ; has been passed ex-parte.

Learned departmental representative invited our attention to the CIT(A)’s discussion in pg.3 para 4 that the assessee has been afforded adequate opportunities of hearing and he failed to avail the same.

We find no merit in the Revenue’s argument since there is no indication in the CIT(A)’s order as to whether the corresponding lower appellate hearing notices had been actually served on the assessee or not? Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance back to the CIT(A) for his afresh appropriate adjudication as per law. The assessee or its authorised representative shall appear before the CIT(A) on or before 31-10-2021 with all the relevant documents, at its own risk and responsibility, to be followed by three effective opportunities of hearing.

This assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14th June, 2021

TSI BUSINESS PARKS (HYDERABAD) PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD, 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