Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “B-SMC”, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B-SMC”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sri Janga Reddy Anugu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-9(4), PAN: AGYPA 9719 N Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri A. Srinivas Revenue by: Sri M.N. Murthy Naik, DR Date of hearing: 20/02/2020 Date of pronouncement: 24/02/2020 ORDER
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-7, Hyderabad in appeal No.0400/CIT(A)-7/2016-17, dated - 09/11/2017 passed U/s. 144 r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2014- 15.
The assessee has raised the following grounds in this appeal:
“1. The order of the appellate commissioner is contrary to the law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 16,29,121/- being estimation of business income @ 5% of stock sold, as added by the A.O. 3. The appellate Commissioner erred in confirming an addition of Rs. 10,47,500/- on account of cash deposits as added by the A.O. 4. Any other grounds which the appellant may urge either before or 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 proper opportunity to the assessee of being heard. It was further submitted that due to unavoidable and compelling reasons, neither the assessee nor his Counsel could appear before the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT (A) on the date of the respective hearing. Under these circumstances, the Ld. Revenue Authorities had disposed off the appeal by passing ex-parte order. The Ld. AR pleaded before us that since the assessee could not pursue the appeal properly before the Ld. Revenue Authorities on the earlier occasions one more opportunity may be provided by remitting back the matter to the file of the Ld AO for fresh hearing. 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) and the Ld. AO. Under these circumstances, the Ld. Revenue Authorities had no other option but to pass ex-parte orders on merits based on the materials available on record. Hence, it was pleaded that the orders passed by the Ld. Revenue Authorities do not call for any interference and appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.
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) as well as the ld. AO had posted the case on several occasions. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A) on the given dates of hearing. Therefore, the Ld. Revenue Authorities were left with no other option except to pass ex-parte orders. In this situation, I do not find much strength in the arguments advanced by the ld. AR. However, considering the prayer of the Ld. AR and the issues involved in the appeal, in the interest of justice, I hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld. AO for de novo consideration thereby 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.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above. Pronounced in the open Court on 24th February, 2020.