Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD
Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad in appeal No.0487/ITO-1/Nalgonda/CIT(A)- 3/2016-17, dated 22/06/2018 passed U/s. 144 r.w.s 263 and U/s. 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2011-12.
The assessee has raised five grounds in his appeal and they are extracted herein below for reference:
“The learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have provided one more opportunity of personal hearing to the Appellant, as he has undergone to mental trauma due to the death of his 27 years old son due to failure of both the kidneys. The death was occurred on 11.07.2018 and intimations of personal hearing was last of his memory. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case pass the impugned order on merits. Both the lower authorities failed to appreciate the facts of the case in respect of deposits made into Bank of Baroda to the tune of Rs. 16.00 lakhs towards transfer of amount from one account to another on 14.09.2010, in spite of submitting the proof of bank statement. Hence, an amount of Rs. 16,00,0001- is to be deleted from total deposits in all the 3 Banks (other than Cash deposits) of Rs. 1,80,25,795/-. Consequently, addition of Rs. 10,93,9041- , is erroneous.
2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not considering the cash deposits of Rs. 15.61 lakhs made into the Bank of Baroda are from unutilized cash with drawls and assessee has no other income except the admitted income before the 1st assessing authority. Hence, addition of Rs. 1,18,16,0001- including cash deposits into Bank of Baroda of Rs. 15.61 lacs (10,32,000 + 5,29,000) is erroneous and to be deleted from the addition to the return of income. 3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) passed the impugned order hastily without application of mind, without making any efforts to find out the veracity of the appellant's statement about the alleged cash deposits made by the Managing Partner of MIs. Ravi Hi tech Engineers & Contractors, Mr. Rama Sunder Reddy, Class- 1 contractor, being a real beneficiary. Thereby, the assessing authority violated the principles of natural justice. 4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have provided an ample opportunity to submit further proof in support of appellant's claim in respect of alleged deposits of Rs. 1,29,09,9041- and levied a tax thereupon of Rs. 10,32,7921- without verifying the data submitted by the Appellant during the hearing. It is also on record, even in the 1st assessment proceedings and during the revision proceedings that the real beneficiary is MIs. Ravi Hi-tech, who is a main contractor for the appellant's works. On perusal of ledger extract and Bank statements also proves that the amounts were duly transferred to MIs. Ravi Hitech, on the same day or on the immediate working day. This is evident on record. In such circumstances, the assessing authority ought to have appreciated the facts and summon the Managing Partner of MIs. Ravi Hi-tech to extract the correct position. Without examining the real beneficiary passing impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. The appellant craves leave to file further grounds which are in the nature of modified, altered or fresh grounds during the course of appeal proceedings.”
At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before us that the Ld. AO had passed ex-parte order U/s. 144 r.w.s 263 of the Act without providing proper opportunity to the assessee of being heard and made certain additions (Rs. 10,47,175 + Rs. 10,32,792/- + Rs.1,900) aggregating to Rs. 20,81,867/-. It was further submitted that on appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) also passed ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity. It was therefore pleaded that the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to pursue his case before the Ld. Revenue Authorities. Ld. DR on the other hand objected 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 his Representative appeared before the Ld. AO and before the Ld. CIT (A). Under these circumstances, the Ld. Revenue Authorities had no other option but to pass ex-parte orders on merits based on the materials available on record. Hence, it was pleaded that the orders passed by the Ld. Revenue Authorities do not call for any interference and appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.
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) as well as the ld. AO had posted the case on several occasions. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the Ld. AO on the given dates of hearing and even before the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the Ld. Revenue Authorities were left with no other option except to pass orders based on the material available on record. In this situation, We do not find much strength in the arguments advanced by the ld. AR. However, considering the prayer and the submissions of the Ld. AR and the nature of issues involved in the appeal, in the interest of justice, We hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld. AO for de-novo consideration thereby 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. Revenue Authorities in their proceedings failing which the Ld. Revenue Authorities shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and merits based on the materials on the record. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove.
Pronounced in the open Court on the fourth of February, 2021.