THE KAKATIYAKHANI LORRY OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, WARANGAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 508/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 November 2019AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that they were not given a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration, with a warning to the assessee to cooperate.

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 to be heard, while the revenue argued that sufficient opportunities were provided but the assessee failed to appear.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250(6),Section 80P

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

Hearing: 20/11/2019Pronounced: 20/11/2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B-SMC”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.508/Hyd/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Kakatiyakhani Lorry Vs. Income Tax Officer, Owners Welfare Ward-2, Association, Warangal. Warangal. PAN: AADAT 5888 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri T. Chaitanya Kumar Revenue by: Sri Nilanjan Dey – DR Date of hearing: 20/11/2019 Date of pronouncement: 20/11/2019 ORDER

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad in appeal No.10188/ITO-2/WGL/CIT(A)-3/2017- 18, dated 11/01/2019 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2015-16.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds in his appeal:-

“1. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent it is prejudicial to the assessee. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. without giving further opportunity. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in rejecting deduction U/s. 80P of the IT Act, without giving any opportunity.

4.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in estimating the income @ 0.35% on turnover without giving any opportunity. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in determining the total income at Rs. 2,15,550/- as against the income admitted of Rs. 37,014/-. 6. 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) has passed ex-parte order without providing proper 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 sufficient 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) does not call for any interference 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. It appears that the Ld. CIT (A) had posted the case for hearing 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 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 20th November, 2019.

Sd/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Hyderabad, Dated: 20th November, 2019

OKK

Copy to:- 1) The Kakatiyakhani Lorry Owners Welfare Association, C/o. T. Chaitnya Kumar, Advocate, Flat No.102, Gowri Apts, URDU Lane, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad. 2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Warangal, Telangana. 3) The CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad 4) The Pr. CIT-3, Hyderabad 5) The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 6) Guard File

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →