Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “A-SMC”, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A-SMC”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2006-07 Late. Govindlal Awasti, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Rep. By L/R. Bheemeshwar Ward-7(2), Awasti, 14-4-291/92, Hyderabad. Shah Inayathgunj, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Smt. S. Sandhya Revenue by: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR Date of hearing: 17/02/2020 Date of pronouncement: 08/07/2020 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT (A)-10, Hyderabad in appeal No. 0272/CIT(A)-10/2015-16, dated 24/05/2016 passed U/s. 144 r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the AY 2006- 07.
The assessee has raised the following grounds in his appeal:-
“1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) confirming the additions made by the AO is against the facts of the case, material on record & provisions of law. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) appeals erred in confirming the addition on account of the LTCG at Rs. 5,65,037/-.
3. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs. 4,16,923/-.
4. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the market value of the land and also the built up area as on 1/4/1981. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,50,000/- as income from other sources even though the said amount was part of the sale consideration having being separately given by vendee for sale of old material. 6. The CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of a sum of Rs. 42,500/- claimed as brokerage paid for sale of impugned property. 7. In the above facts and circumstances and grounds of appeal, the appellant prays for the deletion of entire addition to the returned income.”
At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before me that the Ld. AO has passed an ex parte order in the case of the assessee without providing proper opportunity of being heard. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) also did not afford proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ld. AR further argued by stating that the assessee had expired and presently the legal heir of the assessee is pursuing the appeal. It was therefore pleaded that the appeal of the assessee may be remitted back to the file of the ld. AO in order to provide an opportunity to the legal heir of the assessee to effectively pursue the appeal. The Ld. DR though argued stating that proper opportunities were provided to the assessee by the Ld.Revenue Authorities on the earlier instances, conceded to the request of the Ld. AR considering the fact that the assessee had deceased and the legal heir of the assessee is pursuing the appeal.
After hearing both the parties, I am of the considered view that the appeal of the assessee is required to be remitted back to the file of the Ld. AO because the legal heir of the assessee has to equip themselves with all the details of the case in order to pursue the appeal in an effective manner. Further it is obvious that the Legal heir will require quite some time to gather all the requisite details to defend the case of the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I hereby remit the appeal of the assessee back to the file of Ld. AO for de-novo consideration with directions to admit and consider any fresh evidence submitted by the legal heir of the assessee and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law and merit. It is ordered accordingly.
Before parting, it is worthwhile to mention that this order is pronounced after 90 days of hearing the appeal, which is though against the usual norms, I find it appropriate, taking into consideration of the extra-ordinary situation in the light of the lock-down due to Covid-19 pandemic. While doing so, I have relied in the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. JSW Ltd. In and 6103/M/2018 for AY 2013-14 order dated 14th May 2020.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above.
Pronounced in the open Court on 08th July, 2020.