DURGAMBA CHAKKILAM,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's argument regarding lack of opportunity. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the AO for de novo consideration, providing the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2009-10. The assessee contended that the matter was decided ex-parte without a proper opportunity of being heard.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard by the lower authorities. Whether the capital gains on property sale are exempt under Section 54F.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “A-SMC”, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A-SMC”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Durgamba Chakkilam, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-6(1), PAN: ABQPC 7527 B Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri V. Siva Kumar Revenue by: Sri M. Murthy Naik, DR Date of hearing: 20/01/2020 Date of pronouncement: 04/02/2020 ORDER
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-6, Hyderabad in appeal No.0231/2016-17/A3/CIT(A)-6, dated 19/01/2018 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 and U/s. 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2009-10.
The assessee has raised the following grounds in her appeal:
“1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the LTCG arrived at on sale of the property is exempt from taxation U/s. 54F as the same was invested in acquiring another property within the time allowed under the statute.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have allowed sufficient opportunity to the assessee to explain its case before the CIT(A) properly.
Crave leave to urge / raise any other ground that might be necessary at the time of hearing or during the course of this appeal.”
At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before us that the Ld. CIT (A) as well as the Ld. AO has decided the matter ex-parte without giving proper opportunity of being heard. It was therefore pleaded that the appeal may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. AO in order to provide the assessee with one more opportunity of being heard. The Ld. DR vehemently opposed to the submissions of the ld. AR and requested for confirming the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities.
I have heard rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. On perusing the order of the Ld. AO as well as that of the Ld. CIT (A) it is apparent that the assessee had not co-operated before the Ld. Revenue Authorities in their proceedings. Hence, the ld. Revenue Authorities had no other option but to pass orders based on the materials on record. In this situation, I do not find much strength in the arguments advanced by the Ld. AR. However, considering the nature of 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 the assessee with one more opportunity of being heard. At the same breath, I also caution the assessee to promptly co- operate before the ld. Revenue Authorities in their proceedings failing which they shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and merits based on the materials on record.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove.
Pronounced in the open Court on the 4th February, 2020.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026