KODURI SATYANARAYANA,KARIMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KARIMNAGAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's plea for another opportunity due to unavoidable circumstances. While noting the revenue's contention of sufficient opportunities, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the AO for de-novo consideration in the interest of justice.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the ITAT concerns an ex-parte order passed by the AO and CIT(A) without providing adequate opportunity. The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 54F, which was disallowed.
What were the issues?
Whether the AO and CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte orders without providing proper opportunity to the assessee, and if the disallowance of the Section 54F claim was justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD
Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) Assessment Year:2013-14 Sri Koduri Satyanarayana, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, D.No. 1-5-139, Boiwada, Ward-1, Karimnagar. Karimnagar. PAN: ACAPK 9274 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad Revenue by: Ms. Kanika Agarwal, DR Date of hearing: 02/11/2020 Date of pronouncement: 04/11/2020 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT (A)-2, Hyderabad in appeal No. 0068/2016-17, dated 30/06/2017 passed U/s. 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act for the AY 2013-14.
The assessee has raised three grounds in his appeal which are extracted herein below for reference:
(1) The Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in disposing of the appeal without giving further opportunity to the appellant. (2) The Ld. CIT (A) in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not justified on confirming the disallowance of claim U/s. 54F.
(3) The appellant reserves his right to add, amend, substitute or delete any ground of the appeal during the course of hearing.”
At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before me that the Ld. AO had passed ex-parte order U/s. 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act without providing proper opportunity to the assessee and disallowed the deduction of Rs. 3,88,11,900/- claimed U/s. 54F of the Act. It was further submitted that on appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) also passed ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before us that during the assessment proceedings and first appellate proceedings the assessee could not appear before the Ld. AO due to unavoidable circumstances However both the Revenue Authorities passed ex-parte order without providing proper opportunity to the assessee of being heard. 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). Further, the assessee did not place any cogent evidence on record to justify his stand. 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, 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 04th November, 2020.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026