K. RAJA SEKHAR, SEC'BAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1217/HYD/2016Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 February 2020AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's submission that the assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an order by the CIT(A) which dismissed their appeal. The assessee claimed the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without giving a proper opportunity to be heard and erred in sustaining an addition of Rs. 10,40,000.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee and whether the addition sustained was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “A-SMC”, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

Hearing: 04/02/2020Pronounced: 20/02/2020

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-5, Hyderabad in appeal No.0564/2014-15/CIT(A)-5, dated 29/02/2016 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 and U/s. 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in his appeal:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeal of the appellant is erroneous, illegal and unsustainable in law.

2.

The CIT(A) ought to have granted sufficient opportunity to the appellant for putting forth his case.

3.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 10,40,000 being the amount invested by the appellant in the share capital of M/s. E-Load Services Pvt Ltd. The Commissioner (Appeals)

failed to appreciate that the appellant has explained the source for the investment made with evidence and the same ought to have been accepted.

4.

The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the presumption of the A.O. that the sources explained by the appellant would have been utilised for some other purposes.”

3.

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 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 to pursue the appeal. Ld. DR, on the other hand, vehemently opposed to the submissions of the Ld. AR and argued by stating that several 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 and appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.

4.

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. It is apparent from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) that he had posted the case on several occasions. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the CIT(A) on the dates of hearing. Therefore, the Ld. CIT (A) was left with no other option except to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte. 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 in the interest of justice, I 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, 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.

5.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove.

Pronounced in the open Court on 20th February, 2020. (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 20th February, 2020. OKK Copy to:- 1) Sri Rajasekhar Kolapally C/o. A.V. Raghu Ram & P. Vinod, Advocates, 610, 6th Floor, Babukhan Estate, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad -1. 2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Signature Towers, Opp. Botanical Garden, Kondapur Road, Hyderabad-500 084. 3) The CIT(A)-5, Hyderabad 4) The Pr. CIT-5, Hyderabad 5) The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 6) Guard File

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →