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:2014-15 Vikyat Infra Development Vs. DCIT, Private Limited, Circle-17(2), Hyderabad – 500 007. Hyderabad. PAN: AADCV 1691 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri S. Rama Rao Revenue by: Smt. M. Narmada, DR Date of hearing: 14/09/2020 Date of pronouncement: 15/09/2020 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. 0514/2016-17/CIT(A)-5, Dated 24/07/2018 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the AY: 2014- 15.
The assessee has raised five grounds in its appeal which are extracted herein below for reference:-
(i) The order of the Ld. CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law.
(ii) The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 37,25,391/- representing the “other income” when the business income is estimated and the said “other income” emanates from the same business activity. (iii) The Ld. CIT (A) erred in rejecting the claim for deduction of Rs. 54,06,560/- made by the appellant in view of the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. (iv) The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have seen that this amount is the deduction claimed from out of the disallowances made in the earlier assessment years and that, therefore, this does not form part of the income for the year under consideration. (v) 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 an 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 sufficient 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. It is apparent from the order the Ld. CIT (A) that the Ld. CIT (A) had posted the case for hearing on number of occasions. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the CIT(A) on the given dates 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. In this situation, We do not find much strength in the arguments advanced by the ld. AR. 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 the 15th September, 2020.