Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘S M C’ BENCH, HYDERABAD.
Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONYSmt. Nirmala Alla,
O R D E R This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Hyderabad in dt.17.09.2019 for the Assessment Year 2007-08.
The assessee has raised the following grounds in her appeal :
“ 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income- Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law.
2 ITA 261/Hyd/2019
2. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing officer in holding the land as non-agricultural.
3. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the fact that the land is agricultural land and is exempt as the asset sold is not a capital asset.
The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the lands are located in a village beyond the notified area and they are agricultural in nature and, therefore, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the levy of capital gain tax on sale of the lands.
5.The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234A and 2348 of the I.T. Act.
6. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.”
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in real estate business. Initially the assessee had not filed her Return of Income. A survey u/s. 133A was conducted in the case of M/s. Balaji Air Ticketing India P. Ltd. on 29.3.2011 wherein certain loose sheets evidencing land transaction by the assessee was found. Even though several notices were served on the assessee u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the assessee did not respond. The ld. A.O. thereafter completed the assessment exparte wherein he assessed the income of the assessee as Rs.38,25,100. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the ld. A.O. as the assessee has not co-operated before him also in the proceedings.
3 ITA 261/Hyd/2019 4. At the outset, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the assessee was not in a position to furnish the evidences to support her case at the time of assessment proceedings and appellate proceedings. The learned Authorised Representative further submitted that since the assessee is now in position to furnish all the requisite evidences, an opportunity may be provided before the ld. Assessing Officer. The learned Authorised Representative further submitted that if an adequate opportunity is not provided to the assessee, she will be put to irreparable loss. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, vehemently opposed to the submissions of the ld. AR and prayed for confirming the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard both the parties and carefully perused the material on record.
From the facts of the case it is apparent that the assessee had not co-operated before the revenue authorities in their proceedings. Therefore the arguments advanced by the learned Authorised Representative does not have any merit.
However, keeping in view of the prayer of the assessee and the issue involved in the appeal, I hereby remit the entire matter to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for de novo consideration thereby providing one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. At the same breath, I also caution the assessee and her representative to promptly co-operate before the lower revenue authorities in their proceedings
4 ITA 261/Hyd/2019 failing which they shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the material available on record.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above.