Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
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 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rayalaseema Expressway Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-3(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN: AAECR 3319 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Smt. S. Sandhya Revenue by: Smt. M. Narmada, DR Date of hearing: 09/03/2020 Date of pronouncement: 25/06/2020 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad in appeal No.0119/CIT(A)-3/15-16, dated 14/07/2016 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2012-13.
The Assessee has raised the following grounds in its appeal:-
(1) The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. (2) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in finalising the appeal without providing proper opportunity to the appellant.
(3) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the appellant did not commence business activity during the previous year relevant for the assessment year under consideration. (4) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the interest of Rs. 87,26,560/- is assessable under the head “income from other sources” without considering the fact that the appellant commenced business activity and that the interest derived is to be adjusted against interest paid and other expenses. (5) 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 his 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. The Ld. CIT (A) had posted the case on three occasions i.e., 01/06/2016, 20/06/2016 and 13/07/2016. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the CIT(A) on the above-mentioned dates of hearing. Therefore, the Ld. CIT (A) was left with no other option except to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte. 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, 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.
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, we 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, we 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 filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove.
Pronounced in the open Court on 25th June, 2020.