KANAKA RAJU SUDAMALLA, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 640/HYD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 November 2020AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that a proper opportunity of being heard was not granted. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance. The assessee contended that proper opportunities were not granted, citing the sickness of the counsel's father. The Revenue argued that multiple opportunities were given, but the assessee failed to appear.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without granting sufficient opportunity to the assessee to present their case, and whether the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250(6),Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD

Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya
For Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandy, DR
Hearing: 04/11/2020Pronounced: 06/11/2020

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.

2.

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.”

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

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.

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →