Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD
ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad in appeal No. 10242/ITO, W-7(3), Hyd/CIT(A)-3/2018-19, dated 16/10/2019 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 and U/s. 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2015-16.
The assessee has raised eight grounds in his appeal and they are extracted herein below for reference:- “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct either in law or on facts and in both. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the initiating of proceedings U/s. 147 is bad in law.
The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in not considering the petition for adjournment and disposing off the appeal as ‘none present’.
The Ld. CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the grounds supported by all the facts mentioned in the statement of facts.
5. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fat that the A.O. himself observed that the consideration to the appellant as owner is the value of the cost of development of the owner’s share of villas as claimed in ground No.8 filed before the Ld. CIT(A). 6. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in summarily rejecting various issues raised in the appeal before him without adjudicating on the merits. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 79,26,560/- made by the A.O. 8. The appellant craves leave to add amend or alter any of the grounds at the time of hearing.”
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.
4. 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. In this situation, We 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, We hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT (A) in order to consider the appeal afresh on merits by providing one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. At the same breath, We 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.
Pronounced in the open Court on the 03rd May, 2021.