Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh
This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y 2008-09 against the order of the CIT (A)-2, Hyderabad, dated 30.12.2016.
The case was taken up for hearing through Video- Conferencing and both the parties i.e. the learned Counsel for the assessee and the learned DR were heard.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, did not file any return of income for the relevant A.Y. The AO received information that the assessee, along with one Shri B. Surender Reddy, have sold properties in Manikonda vide sale deed No.633/2007 for Rs.66,00,00/- and vide sale deed Page 1 of 5 of 2017 K Nagi Reddy Hyderabad..
No.387/2008 for Rs.72,60,000/-, but the assessee has not offered capital gains to tax by filing the return of income. As the assets sold are situated within the municipal limit of Rajendranagar Municipality, AO treated the said land to be capital assets within the meaning of section 2(14) of I.T. Act. The AO therefore, initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act by issuing a notice u/s 148.
3(a). In response to the notice u/s.142(4) of the Act, the assessee’s AR appeared and submitted that the assessee had filed his return of income for the A.Y 2008-09 on 31.07.2008 by declaring an income of Rs.62,583/-. It was also submitted that the assessee has filed a revised return for the said A.Y incorporating the transaction from which capital gains has arisen.
The assessee further submitted that along with Shri B. Surender Reddy, the assessee has purchased a property at Manikonda vide AGPA-cum-sale Deed No.5905/2007 for an amount of Rs.2,47,50,000/- and that he has sold one more property along with Shri B. Surender Reddy vide document No.9335/2007 for a consideration of Rs.60,00,000/-. The AO issued a show cause notice dated 12.02.2016 proposing to assess the capital gains and also unexplained sources towards assessee’s share of investment in purchase of land vide document No.5905/2007. The assessee, however, did not appear thereafter nor did he file any details and therefore, the AO completed the assessment u/s 144 of the I.T. of 2017 K Nagi Reddy Hyderabad..
Act by bringing to tax a sum of Rs.1,24,00,000/- the assessee’s share of investment in the property at Manikonda purchased vide document No.5905/2007. As regards the property sold by the assessee along with Shri B. Surender Reddy, the AO treated the gain arising therefrom as short term capital gain and brought the sum of Rs.52,70,606/- to tax. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A). But since the assessee did not appear before the CIT (A), the CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limini and the assessee is in second appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal:
“1) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is erroneous, illegal and held contrary to the facts of the instant case. 2) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer without giving any opportunity to the appellant. 3) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer u/s 144 read with section 147 of I T Act without considering the contentions of the appellant. 4) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in issuing a notice u/s 148 of the Act. 5) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the transaction was sham transaction without any sale consideration and out to have held that the same is a sham transaction. 6) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the entire purchase and sale of land transactions are bogus.
7) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in determining the long term capital gain of Rs.1,20,12,261/without giving any opportunity contrary to the principles of natural justice. of 2017 K Nagi Reddy Hyderabad..
8) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in determining total income at Rs.1,21,78,510/- against the income admitted of Rs.62,583/-. 9) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in charging interest u/s 234A of Rs.3,56,330/- u/s 2348 of Rs.26,03,950/- and U/s 234C of Rs.1,0l,417/-. 10) Any other grounds/ground may be urged at the time of hearing”.
At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has all the relevant details but could not furnish the same before the lower authorities and prayed for an opportunity to present his case before the authorities below.
The learned DR was also heard who opposed the remand stating that sufficient opportunities were given to the assessee but the assessee failed to avail the same.
On hearing both the parties and also having gone through the records, we find that the assessee has filed a detailed statement of facts before the CIT (A) incorporating his submissions before the AO and also explaining the nature of transactions and the litigations pending against the properties.
Neither the AO nor the CIT (A) have considered the same.
Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, of 2017 K Nagi Reddy Hyderabad.. and purely in the interest of justice, we deem it fit and proper to remand the issue to the file of the AO for de novo consideration in accordance with law provided the assessee is able to file all the necessary details before the AO. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the AO and file all the necessary details for early completion of the assessment. Needless to mention that the assessee shall be given a fair opportunity of hearing.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 10th September, 2020.