GRANDHI SUGUNA,SRIKAKILA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SRIKAKULAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 79/VIZ/2020Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 June 2021AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the case back for fresh decision on merits. This was done to ensure justice, considering the unclear details of opportunities provided to the assessee and the lack of independent findings by the lower appellate authority.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte as no one appeared on their behalf. The CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's addition of Rs. 14,70,858/- as Long Term Capital Gain without independent findings.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) correctly dismissed the appeal ex-parte without sufficient clarity on opportunities provided and whether the order lacked independent findings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, HON’BLE & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HONBLE

Hearing: 24/06/2021

O R D E R PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 29/11/2019 impugned herein passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 [for short, “ld. Commissioner”], Visakhapatnam u/sec. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") for the A.Y. 2011-12.

2.

In this case, during the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. Commissioner, none appeared on behalf of the appellant/Assessee in spite of affording sufficient opportunity of being heard. Therefore, ld. Commissioner decided the appeal as ex-parte by concluding as under:-

“5.2 ......During the course of appellate proceedings, none appeared on behalf of the appellant in spite of affording sufficient opportunity of being. Since, the appellant has not produced any substantial evidence in support of her claim either before the AO or during the course of appeal proceedings. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere into the action of the Assessing Officer in making the addition of Rs. 14,70,858/- towards the income under the head of Long Term Capital Gain u/sec. 143(3) of the Act addition and the same is hereby upheld. Therefore, the appeal made by the appellant on this ground is hereby dismissed.”

3.

Though it appears from the impugned order wherein it is stated that none appeared on behalf of the appellant in spite of affording sufficient opportunity of being heard, but it is not clear as to how many opportunities and by which mode has been given to the Assessee. It a relevant fact that the ld. Commissioner did not pass the order on merits by giving independent finding, but just upheld the order. Therefore, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, for the ends of justice, it appropriate be appropriate to set aside the impugned order herein and remit the case back to the file of the ld. Commissioner for decision afresh on merits, suffice to say while affording reasonable opportunity(s) of being heard to the Assessee. Hence, ordered accordingly.

4.

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose.

Order Pronounced in open Court on this 24th day of June, 2021.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →