VUCHURU ANILA PREM REDDY,LONDON vs. ITO, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

There is a delay of 87 days in filing of this appeal by the assessee for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents of the condonation petition filed along with the affidavit and after hearing the learned DR, the delay in filing of this appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the ex-parte order of the learned CIT (A) in upholding the re-assessement proceedings and confirming the addition of Rs.24,82,744/- made by the Assessing Officer as Long-Term Capital Gain.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a Non-Resident Indian. During the financial year 2007-08 relevant to the impugned A.Y, the assessee had sold 3 immovable properties on 6.10.2007 in the capacity of General Power of Attorney holder of Sri/Smt. Vuchuru Sadhana Reddy, 32, Copt Royd Grove, Yeadon, Leeds, LS197HQ, UK. Since the assessee had acted as a GPA Holder on behalf of Sri/Smt. Vuchuru Sadhana Reddy, UK and executed the sale document, the Assessing Officer issued a show-cause letter dated 27.3.2015 asking the assessee to explain as to why he should not be treated as representative assessee u/s 163(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as Sri/Smt. Vuchuru Sadhana Reddy, UK was in receipt of her share of sale consideration through the assessee. Since the assessee did not respond to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 of the I.T. Act and determined the Long-Term Capital Gain at Rs.24,82,744/- in the hands of the assessee by observing as under:

Before the learned CIT (A), the assessee filed an appeal. However, due to non-appearance of the assessee despite number of opportunities granted, the learned CIT (A) in the ex- parte order passed by him confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.

Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is an NRI and due to non-receipt of the statutory notices and due to lack of proper legal advice, he could not pursue the matter either before the Assessing Officer or before the learned CIT (A). The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate his case before the Assessing Officer.

The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly opposed the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the assessee. He submitted that a perusal of the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT (A) shows that the assessee has scant regard for the statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT (A). He accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT (A) should be confirmed. In his alternate argument he submitted that some cost should be levied on the assessee.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that due to non-compliance of the assessee to the statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 144 r.w.s. 144C determining the Long-Term Capital Gain in the Page 4 of 6

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.