Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD
ORDER
PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Hyderabad in appeal No.4/10272/17-18/W-13(5), Hyd/CIT(A)-4/Hyd/19-20, dated 24/06/2019 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 254 and U/s. 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y.: 2010- 11.
The assessee has raised three grounds in his appeal and they are extracted herein below for reference:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Hyderabad, dismissing the appeal is erroneous and unsustainable in law.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the determination of capital gains at Rs. 67,62,470/- by the A.O. the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant is entitled to deduction in respect of all villas received by him as per the provisions of section 54F of the Act.
The Authorities below failed to appreciate that there is a deemed investment u/s. 54F of the Act and the appellant as per the provisions then in operation, was entitled to deduction U/s. 54F of the Act in respect of all the 16 villas he received in the development agreement.”
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.
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. 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, on examining the Ld. CIT(A)’s order, We find that the Ld.CIT(A) has simply dismissed the assessee’s appeal ex-parte without passing a speaking Order on merits. Therefore, considering 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 07th April, 2021.