KALADHAR PANJALA, KARIMNAGAR,KARIMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KARIMANAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1551/HYD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 February 2020AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine without providing a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the ITAT remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-appearance. The assessee then filed an appeal before the ITAT, also without appearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

Hearing: 05/02/2020Pronounced: 20/02/2020

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A-SMC”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sri Kaladhar Panjala, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar – 505468. Ward-2, PAN: AOBPP 6892 A Karimanagar. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: None Revenue by: Sri Nilanjan Dey, DR Date of hearing: 05/02/2020 Date of pronouncement: 20/02/2020 ORDER

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Hyderabad in appeal No. 0027/2016-17, dated 30/06/2017 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2013-14.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds in his 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 further opportunity to the appellant.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in arriving at the peak cash credit of Rs. 36,39,600/- and further erred in holding that the income of the said amount is assessable U/s. 68 of the IT Act.

4.

The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have seen that the contract receipts were deposited in the bank accounts and the receipts from the partnership firm were also deposited into the said bank accounts.

5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the explanation submitted and the income from contracts admitted by the appellant and accepted the deposits made into the bank as from explainable sources.

6.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the charging of interest U/s. 234A of Rs. 1,80,304 and U/s. 234B of Rs. 4,05,684/-.

7.

Any other ground or ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.”

3.

At the time of hearing before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee to represent his case. However, considering the issues involved in the appeal and assessee’s non-appearance before the Ld. CIT(A), I am of the opinion that appeal is required to be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, the appeal is taken up for adjudication.

4. On perusing the Order of the Ld. CIT (A) it is apparent that the Ld. CIT (A) had posted the appeal for hearing on three occasions i.e., on 18/05/2017, 01/06/2017 and finally on 18/06/2017. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) on the abovementioned dates of hearing, therefore the Ld. CIT(A) was left with no other option except to pass ex-parte order. But it is evident from the order of the ld. CIT (A) that he has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine. In these circumstances, though the assessee had not co- operated before the Ld CIT (A), in the interest of justice, I am of the considered view that the appeal is required to be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT (A). Accordingly, I hereby remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after affording proper opportunity to the assessee of being heard. I also direct the assessee and his representative to promptly cooperate before the Ld. CIT(A) in the proceedings, failing which the Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order based on law and merits taking into consideration of the materials on record. It is ordered accordingly.

5.

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

Pronounced in the open Court on 20th February, 2020.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →