RAMESH REDDY MODUKURU,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(3), HYDERABAD

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A-SMC”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ramesh Reddy Modukuru, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-13(3), PAN: ACVPM 9403 G Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Smt. S. Sandhya Revenue by: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 07/09/2020 Date of pronouncement: 07/09/2020 ORDER

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Hyderabad in appeal No.4/10292/18-19/ITO, W- 13(3)/CIT(A)-4/Hyd/19-20, dated 13/06/2019 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and U/s. 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2010-11.

“1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal on 13/06/2019 ex-parte without providing opportunity to the appellant. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have seen that when the case was posted on 11/06/2019, the appellant filed an application for adjournment and the office of the CIT(A) received the same and the appeal was decided on 13/06/2019 without positng the case further.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits and each ground should have been decided.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the land sold is an agricultural land beyond the notified area and that therefore, no capital gain arose on sale of the said land.

“1. ………. the petitioner is stationed at Avanigadda, Krishna District and whereas the Chartered Accountant and the Advocate are at Hyderabad on account of which the appeal papers sent by post and received back through courier service resulted in delay. The petitioner submits that the delay is for the reasons beyond the control of the petitioner and is not intentional. The petitioner, therefore, prays the Hon’ble ITAT to kindly condone the delay and pass appropriate orders in the matter.”

Therefore, in the interest of justice, I hereby condone the delay of 4 days in the filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits.

5. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before me 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 proper opportunity had been provided to the assessee however, on the given date 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.

6. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. On examining the facts of the case, I 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 based on the material available on record. In this situation, I do not find much strength in the arguments advanced by the ld. AR. Further, before me the assessee has filed additional evidence for the first time which were not produced either before the Ld. AO or before the Ld. CIT (A). In this regard, the Ld. AR submitted that the said additional evidence could not be produced before the Ld. Revenue Authorities because the assessee was not able to obtain the relevant documents from the designated authorities before the completion of the proceedings before the ld. Revenue Authorities. Further, Ld. AR requested that since the additional evidence produced before the Tribunal will go to the root of the matter the same may be admitted. On perusal of the nature of additional evidence submitted before me, I am of the view that the assessee ought to have produced the additional evidence before the Ld. Revenue Authorities at the appropriate time of proceedings before them which the assessee and his Counsel has grossly failed. Hence submitting the additional evidence for the first time before the Tribunal cannot be appreciated which delays the proceedings in disposing off the case. However, considering the prayer of the Ld. AR, and in the interest of justice, I hereby admit the additional evidence and remit the matter back to the file of Ld. AO in order to consider the additional evidence and decide the appeal afresh on merits after providing one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. At the same breath, I 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.

Pronounced in the open Court on 07th September, 2020.