Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD
Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) Assessment Year:2012-13 Kanaka Raju Sudamalla, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-11(3), PAN: ARBPS 9932 K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Smt. S. Sandhya Revenue by: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandy, DR Date of hearing: 04/11/2020 Date of pronouncement: 06/11/2020 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT (A)-5, Hyderabad in appeal No.0123/2015-16/CIT(A)-5, dated 30/01/2017 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the AY 2012- 13.
The assessee has raised five grounds in his appeal and they are extracted herein below for reference:
(1) The order of the Ld. CIT (A) confirming the order of the AO is not only erroneous both on facts and in law in so far s it is prejudicial to the assessee but also without application of mind to the facts submitted. (2) The ld. CIT (A) erred in passing the order without granting adjournment sought by the counsel in view of sickness of his father and thereby confirming the order on the ground no material is filed. (3) The Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the AO has not given sufficient time to file confirmations for the credits of Rs. 93,20,000/- and further erred in not granting one more opportunity that was sought on the ground of sickness of father of the counsel and thereby erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 93,20,000/-. (4) The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance U/s. 40(a)(ia) of payment of interest to Bajaj Finance of Rs. 2,48,456/- in spite of decision of the special bench to the effect that no disallowance could be made where it is not payable as on 31st March. (5) Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.”
At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before us that the Ld. CIT (A) has passed ex-parte order without providing proper opportunity to the assessee of being heard. It was therefore pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld CIT (A) in order to provide one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Ld. DR, on the other hand, vehemently opposed to the submissions of the Ld. AR and argued that proper opportunities had been provided to the assessee however, on the given dates of hearing, neither the assessee nor its Representative appeared before the Ld. CIT (A). It was further submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) had no other option but to pass ex-parte order based on the materials available on record. Hence, it was pleaded that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) does not call for any interference.
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) had posted the case on several occasions. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the CIT(A) on the date of hearing. Therefore, the Ld. CIT (A) was left with no other option except to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte based on the material available on record. However, considering the prayer of the Ld. AR, and in the interest of justice, We hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT (A) in order to consider the appeal afresh on merits by 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. CIT (A) in the proceedings failing which the Ld. CIT (A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials on the record. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove.
Pronounced in the open Court on Sixth November, 2020.