Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN & SHRI B.R. BASKARAN
PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
All the three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders passed by Ld. CIT(A)-1, Bengaluru and they relate to the assessment years 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15.
In the appeal filed for assessment year 2011-12, the assessee is challenging the assessment of long term capital gain on sale of shares and interest income earned on Escrow deposits. In assessment year 2013-14, the assessee is challenging the assessment of interest income from Escrow deposits. In assessment
Page 2 of 4 year 2014-15, the assessee is challenging the interest income from escrow deposits and also addition towards unexplained cash deposits made into the bank.
At the time of hearing, we notice that the assessee did not appear before Ld. CIT(A) and hence the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned orders ex-parte, without hearing the assessee. Accordingly, the bench proposed to restore these appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating all the issues after hearing the assessee.
The Ld. A.R., however, submitted that similar kind of issues also arise in the assessee’s brother’s hand named Shri T. Rajkumar, wherein he had decided the issues against the assessee. IN the instant cases, the Ld. CIT(A) has followed the decision rendered in the hands of Shri T. Rajkumar. He submitted that the appeals filed by the brother of the assessee (T Rajkumar) is also posted for hearing. Accordingly, he submitted that the issues urged in these appeals may be adjudicated by the Tribunal instead of sending the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).
We noticed that the appeal pertaining to AY 2011-12 in the case of Shri T Rajkumar was not posted. We also noticed that in assessment year 2011-12 only, the issue of capital gains has arisen. The interest income earned on escrow deposits is also related to the issue of sale of shares. Accordingly, when the bench enquired about the status of appeal, if any, filed by Shri T Rajkumar for AY 2011-12, the Ld AR and also the counsel for Shri T Rajkumar informed the bench that Shri T Rajkumar has settled the matter relating to Capital gains under Vivad Se Vishwas Act.
Page 3 of 4 6. We heard the Ld. D.R. and perused the record. It is a fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte, without hearing the assessee. There should not be any dispute that the principles of natural justice would call for giving proper opportunity of hearing to a person before he is condemned. Even though the Ld. CIT(A) has followed the decision rendered in the hands of the assessee’s brother, yet the fact remains that the assessee has not been heard. The possibility that the Ld. CIT(A) may take a different view after hearing the assessee cannot be ruled out. Accordingly, we are of the view that the assessee should be provided with one more opportunity to represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) in all these appeals.
Accordingly, we set aside the orders passed by Ld. CIT(A) and restore all the issues to his file for adjudicating them afresh. After providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) may take appropriate decision in accordance with law.
In the result, all the three appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 7th Feb, 2022.