THUMMA SHOW REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-15(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 808/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 November 2019AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's submission that the assessee failed to appear despite several opportunities. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the AO to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against an ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was heard. The assessee claimed that notices were not served and proper opportunities were not provided. The Revenue contended that multiple opportunities were given, but the assessee failed to appear.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's action without providing proper opportunity to the assessee and whether capital gains were determined correctly.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 250(6),Section 50(2),Section 234A,Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya
Hearing: 19/11/2019Pronounced: 19/11/2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B-SMC”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.808/Hyd/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Thumma Show Reddy, Vs. ACIT, Hyderabad. Circle-15(1), PAN: AAMPT 4267 E Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Smt. S. Sandhya Revenue by: Sri Rajat Mitra, DR Date of hearing: 19/11/2019 Date of pronouncement: 19/11/2019 ORDER

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-8, Hyderabad in appeal No. 10308/CIT(A)-8/Hyd/2018-19, dated 13/2/2019 passed U/s. 144 r.w.s 147 & U/s. 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2009-10.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds in its appeal:

“1. The order of ther Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in initiating proceedings U/s. 147 without considering the fact that neither the notice U/s. 148 nor the notice U/s. 142(1) were served on the appellant. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not providing proper opportunity before deciding the appeal.

4.

the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have confirmed the determination of capital gain of Rs. 14,42,300/- made by the A.O. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have seen that such capital gain is determined without deduction of the cost of acquisition and without applying the provisions of section 50(2) of the Act. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of interest U/s. 234A and 234B of the Act. 7. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.”

3.

At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) as well as the Ld. AO 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 AO 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. A.O. as well as the Ld. CIT (A). It was further submitted that the Ld. Revenue Authorities had no other option but to pass ex-parte order on merits based on the materials available on record. Hence, it was pleaded that the order passed by the Ld. Revenue Authorities need not be interfered 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) posted the case for

hearing on 11/4/2018, 25/4/2018, 15/5/2018, 5/6/2018, 12/6/2018, 2/7/2018 and finally on 30/01/2019. From the record it is apparent that neither the assessee nor his representative appeared before the Ld. CIT (A) on the aforestated dates of hearing. It is also evident that the assessee has not responded to the notices issued by the Ld. AO. Therefore, the Ld. Revenue Authorities were left out with no other option except to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte on merits. 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. AO in order to consider the appeal afresh 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. Revenue Authorities in their proceedings failing which they 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 19th November, 2019.

Sd/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 19th November, 2019

OKK Copy to:- 1) Thumma Show Reddy,H.No. 37-93-37/5A, Madhuranagar Colony, Neredmet, Secunderabad – 500056. 2) ACIT, Circle-15(1), Income Tax Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 3) The CIT(A)-8, Hyderabad. 4) The Pr. CIT-7, Hyderabad. 5) The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 6) Guard File

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →