Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “SMC”, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “SMC”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Karanam Maruthiram Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mulakaledu, Kirikera, Ward-2, Hindupur Mandal, Hindupur – 515201. Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh – 515211. PAN: ABIPM 9315 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: None Revenue by: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR Date of hearing: 02/03/2020 Date of pronouncement: 24/06/2020 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Kurnool in appeal No. 208/CIT(A)/KNL/2014-15, dated 01/03/2019 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2011-12.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in his appeal:-
“1. The impugned order of the C.I.T.(A) is not a speaking order giving reasons for his conclusion. It is not in consonance with the requirements of Sec 250(6) of the LT. Act 1961. It is against the facts and circumstances of the case and the law on the subject.
There is no application of mind to the written submissions dt 15- 12-2016 (Copy enclosed) filed before him on 15-12-2016, 21-12- 2016 and 15-02-2019.
The C.I.T(A) has not at all considered the Statement of Facts filed along with Form No. 35. 4. The C.I.T(A) held in para 6.2 of his order that "it is not the case of the appellant that there was no agreement on the estimate made". It is not correct. The Appellant had not agreed for estimation of income at 8% as mentioned in the Asst order dt 18-11-2013. The alleged agreement by the assessee was already denied in the Statement of Facts dt: 18-09-2014 filed with Form No. 35 and Written Submissions dt 15-12-2016. Even assuming so, the Assessment Order is appealable as per the order of the I.T.A.T. in the case of R.T. Bala Subramaniam Vs I.T.O. (50 Income tax Tribunal Decisions 513) Mad. It is submitted that there is no appeal by the Dept. against this I.T.A.T 's order. 5. The C.LT(A) had committed contempt of Court by not following the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgements in the cases of Raghubar Mandai Harihar Mandai Vs State of Bihar (8 S.T.C. 770) and Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd Vs C.LT (26 ITR 775,782) and Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court's judgement in the case of Dewan Hanuman Man Mohan Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (11 STC 473) . 6. The C.I.T(A) failed to note that the impugned Asst. Order does not contain clear indication of the materials on which the income is estimated, that It is made on mere guess work, conjecture or speculation which the LT.O is not entitled to do. Raghubar Mandai Harihar mandai Vs State of Bihar (8 S.T.C. 770) S.c. and that as the impugned Asst. Order suffers from failure to indicate on what material or BASIS, the income is assessed and tax determined the impugned Assessment is bad and liable to be set aside. (Dewan Hanuman Man Mohan Vs State Of Andhra Pradesh) (llSTC 473) A.P. 7. The C.LT(A) failed to note that the impugned Asst. Order is based on pure guess and on mere conjecture is bad and that there must be something more than bare suspicion ( Dhakeswari cotton Mills Ltd Vs C.I.T) (26 ITR 775, 782) S.C. For these and other grounds that may be submitted later the Appellant humbly prays the Hon'ble Tribunal to reverse the impugned order of the C.LT (A) and allow the appeal by deleting the addition of Rs. 5,05,310/-.”
3. At the time of hearing before me none appeared to represent the case of the assessee. On examining the records, I find that the Ld. CIT (A) has passed ex-parte order based on the written submissions filed by the assessee because none appeared before the Ld. CIT (A) at the time of hearing. Now the assessee has come on appeal before the Tribunal stating that the Ld. CIT (A) has not passed a speaking order. However, on perusing the order of the Ld. CIT (A), I find that he has passed the order after considering the written submission of the assessee. However, since the assessee is aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), in the interest of justice, in my view, the matter should be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) in order to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to pursue the appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) effectively. Accordingly, I hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT (A) for de novo consideration. At the same breath, I 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, 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 filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove.
Pronounced in the open Court on 24th June, 2020.