Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “SMC” BENCH: HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “SMC” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA. No.282/Hyd/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ramamohana Rao vs ITO, . Yalamanchilli, Ward-1, D.No.7-7, Main Road, Kodada, Suryapet. Telangana – 508206. PAN: AAXPY 4996 J (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee: Sri Mohd. Afzal For Revenue : Sri Dinesh Paruchuri, DR Date of Hearing : 13/05/2019 Date of Pronouncement : 24/05/2019 ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, JM. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)- 3, Hyderabad dated 12/11/2018 for the assessment year 2015-16. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
“1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is against the law, weight of the evidence and probabilities of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee has appropriated an amount of Rs. 20,50,000/- by depositing the same in SBI capital gains scheme account, therefore, ought to have deleted Rs. 15,66,895/-. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 15,91,895/- made by the Assessing Officer. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have accorded one more opportunity to the assessee to represent the case. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 25,000/-.”
When this appeal is taken up for hearing, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed an exparte order on the ground that none appeared on behalf of the assessee to represent his case. On this count, Learned Counsel for the Assessee has explained that the assessee is aged about 90 years old. At the time of hearing of the appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee was not well and admitted in hospital and therefore, he could not appear before the first appellate authority. He further submitted that at present the health condition is better and therefore, the assessee may be given one more opportunity to substantiate his case before the CIT(A). 3. On the other hand, Ld DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 4. Having regard to the rival submissions and on perusal of the orders of the lower authorities, I find that considering the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee on the ground of principles of natural justice and also by taking into consideration the age as well as the health condition of the assessee, the assessee should be given one more opportunity to substantiate his case before the CIT(A). That apart, Ld. CIT(A) passed exparte order by applying the ratio in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.) without considering the merits of the case. CIT(A) ought to have passed the order on merits though the assessee has not appeared. CIT(A) has no power to apply the ratio laid down in the case of Multiplan
India (P) Ltd (supra) to dismiss the appeal of the assessee. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, I set-aside the order passed by the CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the appeal in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th May, 2019. Sd/- (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 24th May, 2019. OKK, Sr.PS Copy to 1. Ramamohana Rao Yalamanchilli C/o. Mohd Afzal, Advocate, 402, Sherson’s Residency, 11-5- 465, Criminal Court Road, Red Hills, Hyderabad -4. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Suryapet. 3. CIT (A)-3, Hyderabad. 4. Pr. CIT-3, Hyderabad. 5. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 6. Guard File