SANKHLA SUMAN,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(3), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1128/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 November 2019AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea for a fresh hearing, considering the interest of justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to consider the appeal afresh on merits, providing one more opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte. The assessee contended that they were not given a proper opportunity of hearing and were prevented from filing additional evidence. The Revenue argued that multiple opportunities were given, but the assessee failed to appear.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 58

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

Hearing: 06/11/2019Pronounced: 06/11/2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1128/Hyd/2019 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sankhla Suman, Vs. ITO, Hyderabad. Ward-7(3), PAN: CONPS 4670 D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri Ravindra Chenji Revenue by: Sri Sunku Srinivas, DR Date of hearing: 06/11/2019 Date of pronouncement: 06/11/2019 ORDER

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad in appeal No. 10157/ITO-7(3)/Hyd/CIT(A)- 3/2018-19, dated 21/5/2019 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2016-17.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds in her appeal:

“1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, is contrary to law and facts. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte order without affording opportunity of hearing which is against the principles of natural justice. 3. The appellant contends that she was prevente3d from filing additional evidence by the alleged ex-parte appellate order in the first posting of the hearing itself,

despite the fact that the letter of adjournment was filed and acknowledged by the office of the CIT(A)-3. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 16,50,200 U/s. 58 of the Act by his unilateral order and by depriving right of the appellant to substantiate her appeal by way of additional evidence. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have directed the A.O. to adopt 8% of the gross receipts as she was into the business of ‘home made papads’ on retain basis. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the above grounds as the occasion may require.”

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 several occasions. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the CIT(A) on the 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, and 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, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove. Pronounced in the open Court on 06th November, 2019.

Sd/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 06th November, 2019 OKK

Copy to:- 1) Sankhla Suman, 15-8-460/B, Feel Khana, Hyderabad. 2) Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(3), Signature Towers, Hyderabad. 3) The CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad. 4) The Pr. CIT-3, Hyderabad. 5) The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 6) Guard File

More judgments on Section 58

All 48 judgments and leading authorities on Section 58 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →