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: 2016-17 Lohia Grade Gardens, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-7(3), PAN: AABFL 7955 J Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue by: Sri M. Murthy Naik, DR Date of hearing: 20/01/2020 Date of pronouncement: 22/01/2020 ORDER
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad in appeal No. 10218/ITO-7(3)/Hyd/CIT(A)- 3/2018-19, dated 20/05/2019 passed U/s. 144 r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2016-17.
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 deciding the appeal ex-parte when the appellant filed a petition requesting for adjournment and the next date f hearing was not notified. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have provided further opportunity to the appellant.
4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in completing the assessment ex-parte U/s. 144 of the Act.
5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the A.O. in treating the agricultural income of Rs. 21,97,100/- as the income from other sources without considering the fact that the appellant was holding 15 Acres 31.6 guntas of land and the said land was an agricultural land. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that there is no taxable source of income for the appellant except agricultural income and interest and that therefore no addition should have been made by the A.O. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming levy of interest U/s. 234A of Rs. 13,630/- and U/s. 234B of Rs. 2,24,895/.”
At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before us that the ld. CIT (A) as well as the Ld. AO have passed ex-parte orders in the case of the assessee without providing proper opportunity of being heard. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that the appeal of the assessee may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. AO for de novo consideration thereby providing the assessee one more opportunity to pursue its appeal. The Ld. DR on the other hand vehemently opposed to the submission of the ld. AR and argued by stating that both the Ld. AO as well as the ld. CIT (A) had provided sufficient opportunities to the assessee however, neither the assessee not it’s AR co-operated before the Ld. Revenue Authorities. It was therefore pleaded that the orders of the ld. Revenue Authorities may be confirmed.
After hearing both the parties and perusing the records, I find that the ld. Revenue Authorities had provided sufficient opportunities to the assessee of being heard but neither the assessee nor the Ld. AR appear before the Ld. Revenue Authorities at the time of hearing. Therefore, the Ld. Revenue Authorities had disposed off the appeal on merits based on the materials on record. In this situation, I do not find much merit in the submission of the Ld. AR. However, considering the prayer of the ld. AR, in the interest of justice, I hereby remit the appeal back to the file of Ld. AO for de novo consideration thereby providing the assessee one more opportunity to argue the case before the Ld. Revenue Authorities. At the same time, 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 order in accordance with merit and law based on the materials on record. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove.
Pronounced in the open Court on 22nd January, 2020.