KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY KONCHADA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(2), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 655/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 September 2019AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's plea that necessary materials were misplaced earlier and, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) regarding income from forward exchange trading and disallowance of Chapter VI-A deductions. The assessee claimed both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without proper opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity to present their case before the AO and CIT(A), and if not, whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 144,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

Hearing: 22/07/2019Pronounced: 23/09/2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “SMC”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.655/Hyd/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kalyan Chakravarthy Vs. Income Tax Officer, Konchada, Ward-2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN: AMDPK 9134 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri I. Kama Sastry Revenue by: Sri Nilanjan Dey, DR Date of hearing: 22/07/2019 Date of pronouncement: 23/09/2019 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT (A)-1, Hyderabad in appeal No.0259/2016-17/ITO-12(2)/CIT(A)- 1/Hyd/2018-19 dated 22/02/2019 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144 & U/s. 250(6) of the Act for the assessment year 2014-15.

2.

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

“1. The A.O. is not justified in making an addition of Rs. 17,74,959/- towards income from trading in forward exchange and the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the same. 2. The Ld. A.O. is not justified in disallowing the claim for deduction under Chapter-VI-A of Rs. 1,35,000/- and the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the same.

3.

The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in enhancing the assessment by Rs. 177,30,49,801/- by treating the entire gross value of transactions in forward contracts as unexplained investments u/s. 69 of the Act moreso when the notice of enhancement is not validly served on the assessee. 4. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not valid as it is passed beyond thirty days from the last deemed date of hearing which is 31/01/2019 whereas the order is passed on 06/03/2019. 5. All the above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to one another. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter, amend, modify or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.”

3.

At the outset, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order confirming the assessment order wherein addition was made for Rs. 17,74,959/- being 0.01% of the share transaction as his unexplained investment U/s. 68 of the Act and an amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- disallowing the claim of deduction under Chapter-VI-A of the IT Act, 1961. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that the Ld. A.O. had also passed an ex- prate order in the case of the assessee without providing proper opportunity to the assessee of being heard. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that the assessee is in possession of all the requisite materials to argue his case and therefore pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the A.O. for fresh consideration thereby providing the assessee one more opportunity of being heard.

4.

Learned DR has strongly opposed to the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee and argued by stating that sufficient opportunities were provided by both the A.O. as well as CIT (A). However, the assessee has grossly failed to represent his case. It was therefore pleaded that the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.

5.

I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. On perusal of the facts of the case, it is apparent that sufficient opportunities were provided by the Ld. CIT(A) by posting the case for hearing number of times. It is also apparent that the assessee has not cooperated before the Ld A.O. as well during the assessment proceedings. In this situation, I do not find much strength in the arguments advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee. However, considering the prayer of the Ld. AR that the assessee is now in possession of all the materials and evidence in order to obtain favourable order from the Revenue which was not available during earlier occasions due to misplacement, in the interest of justice I hereby remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. A.O. for fresh consideration thereby offering the assessee one more opportunity to present his case before them. I also make it clear that if the assessee do not promptly cooperate before the Ld. Revenue Authorities, they are at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with merit and law based on the material before them.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes.

Pronounced in the open Court on 23rd September, 2019.

Sd/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 23rd September, 2019 OKK Copy to:- 1) Kalyan Chakravarthy Konchada, Flat No. 404, NJM Ajanta Enclave, Kathera Street, Near Blue Dart Courier Office, Srikakulam. 2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(2), Hyderabad. 3) The CIT(A)-1, Hyderabad 4) The Pr. CIT-1, Hyderabad 5) The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 6) Guard File

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →