BIRADMAL LODHA (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1093/HYD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 October 2019AY 2010-113 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the interest of justice would be served by restoring the matter to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the appeal on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income, but did not respond to statutory notices issued by the AO. The AO completed the assessment ex-parte, adding cash deposits of Rs. 15,65,000/- to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal without adjudicating on merits, citing lack of response.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard and adjudicating the grounds on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another
118 ITR 461 · 1997 · SC
1,656 citing

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY & SHRI V. DURGA RAO

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao

For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Benjwal

Hearing: 15/10/2019

PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (A) - 12, Hyderabad, dated 18/07/2017 for AY 2010-11.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the AY 2010-11 on 02/04/2011 admitting an income of Rs. 1,50,380/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly, statutory notices were issued to the assessee. Since there was no response from the assessee to the said notices, the AO proceeded to complete the assessment ex-parte u/s 144 by considering the information available on record.

2.1 The AO noticed that the assessee has cash deposits for an amount of Rs. 15,65,000/- in the Karur Vyasya Bank Chennai and the same were added to the income of the assessee.

2 ITA No. 1093/H/18 Biradmal Lodha (HUF), Hyd. 3. When the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing that though sufficient opportunities given to assessee, the assessee did not appear for any hearing after due service of notices, hence, not interested in pursuing the appeal. To come to the said conclusion, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B.M. Bhattacharjee, 118 ITR 461 (SC).

Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.

In the grounds of appeal, the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in-limine without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and without adjudicating the grounds on merits.

Referring to the grounds of appeal, ld. AR submitted that the learned CIT(A) decided the matter ex-parte and, therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored to the file of CIT(A) for deciding various grounds of appeal on merits. The learned DR objected to the aforesaid statement of the learned AR.

Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We are of the view that interest of justice will be served if the matter is restored to the file of first appellate authority for deciding various grounds of appeal of the assessee on merits. Accordingly, the CIT(A) is directed to afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter decide the appeal on merits.

3 ITA No. 1093/H/18 Biradmal Lodha (HUF), Hyd.

In The result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order Pronounced in open Court on this 23rd day of October, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (V. DURGA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 23rd October, 2019. kv Copy to:

Biradmal Lodha, HUF, C/o CA Raju Singhvi, CAs., 3-6-661 & 662, Flat No. 404, Sai Sandhya Apartments, Himayatnagar, Hyd. – 500 029 2. ITO, Ward – 10(2), Hyderabad. 3. CIT(A) - 12, Hyderabad. 4. Pr. CIT – VI, Hyd. 5. The D.R., ITAT, Hyderabad. 6. Guard file.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →