GUBBA SEETHA ANIL KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(4), HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's lack of cooperation and evidence before the lower authorities, decided to remit the matter back to the AO. This grants the assessee one more opportunity to be heard and present their case with supporting documents.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed a return for AY 2011-12, but the AO initiated reassessment proceedings based on information about undeclared capital gains from property sale. The assessment was completed ex-parte as the assessee did not appear before the AO or provide explanations to the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present evidence and arguments before the Assessing Officer, given the ex-parte assessment and lack of cooperation in prior proceedings.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “B-SMC”, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-7, Hyderabad in appeal No.0200/CIT(A)-7/2017-18, dated 06/06/2019 passed U/s. 144 r.w.s 147 and U/s. 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2011-12.
The assessee has raised the following grounds in his appeal: “1. The Order of the Learned First Appellate Authority is not correct either in law or on fact and in both.
2. The Learned First Appellate Authority is not justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in restricting the cost of acquisition and completely ignoring the indexed cost of improvement as claimed by the appellant at Rs. 3,80,000/-.
3. The Learned First Appellate Authority is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,55,403/- as unexplained fixed deposit investment.
4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the above grounds.”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2011-12 on 18/07/2011 declaring total income of Rs. 1,74,600/- under the head ‘business income’ and ‘income from house property’. The case was taken up for scrutiny since information was received from Intelligence & Criminal Investigation Wing that the assessee had sold his residential house property against which capital gains was not declared. Thereafter, the Ld. AO completed the assessment ex-parte U/s. 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act assessing the LTCG of the assessee at Rs. 8,41,220/- and income from other source Rs. 3,55,403/- as the assessee had not appeared before the Ld. AO at the time of hearing. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the order of the ld. AO because the assessee has not provided any further explanation.
At the outset, the Ld. AR requested that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. AO in order to provide the assessee with one more opportunity of being heard because now the assessee is in possession of all the relevant documents to justify his claim. The Ld. DR on the other hand vehemently opposed to the submissions of the Ld. AR and pleaded that the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities may be confirmed.
I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. It is apparent from the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities that neither the assessee has co-operated before the Ld. AO at the time of hearing nor furnished any materials to justify its stand before the ld. CIT (A). In this situation, I do not find much strength in the arguments advanced by the Ld. AR. Further, even before us, at this stage, the assessee has not furnished any evidence to substantiate his claim. However, considering the issues in appeal and the financial position of the assessee, in the interest of justice, I hereby remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO 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 order to expediate their proceedings failing which the Ld. Revenue Authorities shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with merit and law based on the materials on record.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove.
Pronounced in the open Court on 17th January, 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 →- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026