SAMPATH GADDAGUNTI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(4), HYDERABAD

The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the above facts and decided the appeal on merits.

The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing officer in deciding the assessment u/s 144 and in resorting to estimation of income at 5% of the cost of liquor sold.

The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have observed that the estimation of income at 5% is on higher side. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition made of RsA,56,950j- under "other sources" on the ground that the bank deposits are not properly explained. 9. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction of Rs.55, 990/-under Chapter VIA of the Income-Tax Act representing payment of premium to LIC, Tuition fee and bank interest.

The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming levy of interest u/s 234A and u/s 234B of the I.T. Act 11. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing”.

The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT (A)-7, Hyderabad and on earlier of hearing before the CIT (A), before whom the assessee had filed an application for adjournment. He submitted that subsequently, the case was allotted to CIT (A)-VIII vide Pr. CIT, Hyderabad F.No.Pr.CC/Tech/SC(appeals)/Jurs/2018-19, dated 24.01.2019 and thereafter the assessee has not received

The learned DR, however, has drawn our attention to para 3 of the CIT(A)’s order wherein the CIT (A) recorded that after receipt of the appeal in her office, notice for hearing were issued on three occasions and on 30.01.2019, the notice was duly served on the assessee. She further observed that none appeared during the proceedings and therefore, she has disposed of the appeal ex- parte.

Upon hearing both the parties and having considered the rival contentions and the material on record, I find that after the transfer of the case to the CIT(A)-VIII, Hyderabad, only one date of hearing was fixed i.e. 30.01.2019 and the CIT (A) has passed an order on 11.02.2019 and the assessee’s contention is that he has never received any notice from the CIT (A). Further, the CIT (A) has not disposed of the appeal on merits. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the CIT (A)-VIII and remand the proceedings to the file of CIT (A)-VIII for reconsideration of the appeal on merits after giving the assessee a fair opportunity of hearing.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.