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: 2013-14 Shambhavi Wines, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 4-1730, Vikarabad, Ward-1, R.R. District. Vikarabad. PAN: AALAS 8245 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Smt. Sandhya Revenue by: Shri Rajat Mitra, 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. 0071/2016-17, dated 31/07/2017 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2013-14.
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 further opportunity to the appellant.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the observations of the A.O. that there is no AOP by name “Shambhavi Wines” in existence when all the business activities of Shambhavi Wines are rendered by the AOP. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the income from wines of Rs. 8,23,430/- in the assessment of Shambhavi Wines where the said amount is admitted.
4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the observations of the A.O. that the investment made by the members of the AOP in Shambhavi Wines of Rs. 9,29,000 is includable in the assessment of appellant. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the investment of Rs. 9,29,000 was properly explained and ought to have deleted the said addition made U/s. 69 of the Act.
5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming charging of interest U/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the IT Act. 6. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of haring.”
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 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) is in order 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) had posted the case on three occasions i.e., 26/05/2017, 20/06/2017 and finally on 07/07/2017. 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.
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.