KAMAL PRASAD MAKADA,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1), HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have verified the assessee's contention regarding property ownership before dismissing the appeal for non-payment of tax. The issue was therefore remanded to the AO for verification.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-payment of admitted tax. The assessee contended that the properties in question belonged to the builder and not to him, hence no tax was payable.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-payment of admitted tax without verifying the assessee's claim that the properties were not his.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ SMC Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi
This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y 2011-12 against the order of the CIT (A)-3, Hyderabad, dated 11.6.2019.
The CIT (A) had dismissed the assessee’s appeal for non-payment of admitted tax. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the sale deeds referred in the assessment order are not pertaining to the properties held or sold by the assessee. He submitted that these two properties belonged to the Builder and since the assessee had not sold any property, he had not filed any return of income and has not paid any tax and there was no deemed tax to be paid by the assessee. The assessee had in fact mentioned all these facts before the CIT (A) but the CIT (A), instead of disposing the appeal on merits has dismissed the appeal for non-payment of self-assessment tax. He, therefore, submitted that the order of the CIT (A) is not sustainable.
Page 1 of 2
ITA No 1278 of 2019 Kamal Prasad Makada Hyderabad.
The learned DR was also heard. 4. I find that the assessee’s case was that the properties which are referred to by the AO are not the properties of the assessee and therefore, there is no tax payable by the assessee. The assessee has raised its objections before the CIT (A), who at least ought to have verified the said contention before holding that the assessee not paid the admitted tax.
In view of the same, I deem it fit and proper to remand the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to verify if the properties which are allegedly sold by the assessee are the properties of the builder or to the assessee. If they do not belong to the assessee, then there cannot be any assessment of the capital gains in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, for the limited purpose of verification, the matter is remanded to the file of the AO.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 1st November, 2019. Sd/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 1st Nov. 2019. Vinodan/sps Copy to: 1 Sri Kamal Prasad Makada, C/o Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Flat No.610, 6th Floor, Babukhan Estate, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 500001 2 ACIT, Circle 7(1) Hyderabad 3 CIT (A)-3 Hyderabad 4 Pr. CIT – 3 Hyderabad 5 The DR, ITAT Hyderabad 6 Guard File By Order
Page 2 of 2
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 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