RENUKA BUTTA, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 373/HYD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 March 2019AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and following principles of natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The appeal was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities due to circumstances beyond her control. The CIT(A) had confirmed additions of Rs. 1,25,48,449/- as deemed dividend and Rs. 30,00,000/- under Section 68.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present her case before the CIT(A) due to unavoidable circumstances, and the merits of the additions made.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: V. DURGA RAO & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH

Hearing: 12/03/2019Pronounced: 15/03/2019

PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-2, Hyderabad dated 24/11/2016 for the assessment year 2012- 13. In this appeal, assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. The order of the Ld CIT (A) is against the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case. 2. The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming an addition of Rs. 1,25,48,449/- as deemed dividend. 3. The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming an addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- which is the addition made u/s 68 of the IT Act, in spite of proving identity of the loan creditor,

genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the creditor.”

2.

When this appeal is taken up for hearing, Learned Counsel for the assessee briefly narrated the facts of the case and submitted that the assessee could not appear before the CIT (A) because of the circumstances beyond her control and therefore, one more opportunity may be given to the assesssee to substantiate her case before the CIT(A).

3.

On the other hand, Learned Departmental Representative submitted that though sufficient opportunities were given to the assessee, she has not even appeared before the CIT (A) and therefore, no further opportunity is required to be given to the assessee.

4.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. After hearing the Ld AR, we find that the assessee could not appear before the CIT (A) though she has been given sufficient opportunities because of the circumstances beyond her control and therefore, in the interest of justice, in our considered opinion, the assessee may be given one more opportunity following the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, we set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the CIT (A) to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We

also direct the assessee to appear before the CIT(A) on the date of hearing as fixed by the CIT(A). Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Pronounced in the open Court on 15th March, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (V. DURGA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated:15th March, 2019 OKK Copy to:- 1) Mohd. Afzal, Advocate, 11-5-465, Sherson’s Residency, Flat No.402, Criminal Courtj Road, Red Hills, Hyderabad-04. 2) ACIT, Circle 2(2), Signature Towers, Kondapur, Hyderabad. 3) The CIT(A)-2, Hyderabad 4) The Pr. CIT-2, 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 →