OKKANTI SRINIVASA RAO,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(4), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 955/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 November 2019AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. While acknowledging that several opportunities were given, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration on merits, providing one more opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing an opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty by passing an ex-parte order without affording the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

Hearing: 18/11/2019Pronounced: 18/11/2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B-SMC”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.955/Hyd/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Okkanti Srinivasa Rao, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-11(4), PAN: AASPO 4781 P Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri V. Siva Kumar Revenue by: Sri Rajat Mitra, DR Date of hearing: 18/11/2019 Date of pronouncement: 18/11/2019 ORDER

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Hyderabad in appeal No. 0050/17-18/ITO, Ward-11(4), Hyd/CIT(A)-1/Hyd/2018-19, dated 08/02/2019 passed U/s. 271(1)(c) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2014-15.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds in his appeal:

“1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous in law and on the facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 3,11,060 levied U/s. 271(1)(c) by the A.O. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA’s Emerald Meadows, which was specifically relied upon by the appellant. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty for the reason that the details of appeal against the quantum demand are not available, since the penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings.

5.

The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that, due to non-striking off of the particular limb of section 271(1)(c) in the notice U/s. 274, would result in quashing of penalty proceedings. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that a single addition in the assessment, would not result in concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, both. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that, both the limbs of section 271(1)(c) are mutually exclusive and cannot exist simultaneously, especially for a single addition made in the assessment. 8. Any other ground or grounds that may be raised during the appellate proceedings with the prior permission from the Hon’ble Tribunal.”

3.

At the outset, the Ld. AR briefly narrated the facts of the case and submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has passed ex-parte order without providing an 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.

4.

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 six occasions i.e., 05/04/2018, 15/05/2018, 17/07/2018, 25/09/2018, 23/10/2018 and finally on 24/01/2019. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the CIT(A) on the above 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, 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.

5.

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

Pronounced in the open Court on 18th November, 2019.

Sd/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 18th November, 2019

OKK Copy to:- 1) Okkanti Srinivasa Rao, Plot No.71, H.No. 49-285/2, Padma Nagar, Phase-1, Chintal, Butbullapur Mandal, Hyderabad-54. 2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(4), Hyderabad. 3) The CIT(A)-1, Hyderabad 4) The Pr. CIT-5, Hyderabad 5) The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 6) Guard File

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →