TEEGALA MANJU LATHA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2), HYDERABAD

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, filed her return of income for the A.Y 2010-11 on 31.07.2010 declaring an income of Rs.2,21,760/- and the same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the AO noticed that, the assessee along with her son, sold an immovable property for a consideration of Rs.50.00 lakhs, even though the SRO value of the property was Rs.52,85,000/-. He also noticed that the assessee has not disclosed the capital gain as per section 50C. Therefore, he reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A), who dismissed the same both for non-appearance of the assessee and also on merits on the basis of the material available on record. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the notice of hearing on 8.5.2018 was served on the assessee only on 7.5.2018 and thereafter, date for hearing was 22.05.2018 on which date, due to some inconvenience the assessee could not appear before the CIT (A) but the CIT (A) has disposed of the appeal ex-parte the assessee on the very next day. He submitted that he has evidence to show that the value of the property was Rs.50.0 lakhs due to certain problems in the property. He prayed for remand of the issue to the file of the CIT (A).

The learned DR was also heard. I find that only three dates were given by the CIT (A) for the assessee to appear and the notice of hearing for the first two dates was not served on the assessee properly. Therefore, considering that the CIT (A) had decided the appeal ex-parte the assessee, I deem it fit and proper

In the result, appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13th March, 2019.