RAMESH DHARAVAT,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(4), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 182/HYD/2020Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 February 2021AY 2011-123 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessees deserve another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes with a direction for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessees' appeals were filed against ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) which affirmed the Assessing Officer's additions of long-term capital gains. The CIT(A) had not adjudicated the merits of the issue due to the assessees' non-appearance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by passing ex-parte orders without adjudicating the merits of the case, and if a fresh opportunity for hearing should be granted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘SMC’ BENCH : Hyderabad

Before: SHRI S.S. GODARA

Hearing: 27/01/2021Pronounced: 22/02/2021

Date of Hearing : 27/01/2021 Date of Pronouncement : 22/02/2021 O R D E R These two assessees’ appeals for A.Y. 2011-12 arise against the CIT(A)-5, Hyderabad’s order dated 16.12.2019 passed in appeal no.10311/2018-19 and the CIT(A)-4, Hyderabad’s order dated 30.08.2019 in appeal no.10352/18-19, in proceedings u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 and u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short ‘the Act’]; respectively. AY 2011-12 Sri Dharavath Ramesh / Shri Dharavath Sreenu Heard Shri B.Shanti Kumar representing both assessees and Shri Aluru Venkata Rao, DR for department. Case files perused. It emerges that in ITA 211/Hyd/2020 of Shri Dharavath Sreenu, there is a delay of 86 days in filing the appeal. He has filed his petition for condonation of delay stating the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but on account of circumstances beyond control. Being satisfied with the reasons explained in the petition for condonation of delay, I condone the same and proceed with the appeal.

2.

It is noticed at the outset that the CIT(A)’s appellate order(s) affirming assessing officer’s identical action making long term capital gain addition in both these assessees’ hands allegedly arising from transfer of the relevant capital asset; has been passed ex-parte on account of their non-appearance. Learned CIT(A) has not adjudicated merits of the sole issue in other words by framing the points of determination followed by detailed lower appellate discussion u/s 250(6) of the Act. I therefore deem it appropriate in larger interest of justice that both these assesses deserve one more innings before the CIT(A). I order accordingly. It is made clear that both these assesses themselves or through their authorized representative(s) shall appear before the CIT(A) on or before 30.07.2021 and thereafter they shall be afforded three effective opportunities of hearing in consequential proceedings at their own risk and responsibility.

These two assessees’ appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in Open Court on 22/02/2021.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →