RAMA DEVI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD- 8(2), HYDERABAD

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order is erroneous in facts and law. 2. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer ex-party without giving further opportunity 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the order of the assessing officer in treating an amount of Rs. 15,99,760/- unexplained investment u/s 69A of the IT Act without giving any opportunity. 4. The learned commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in determining the total income at Rs. 15,99,755/-. 5. The CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act. 6. Any other ground/grounds may be urged at the time of hearing.”

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2017–18 against the assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 05.10.2019. During the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order of the Ld. AO. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee has a good case on merits. However, the assessee could not properly prosecute the case before the lower authorities and could not file the relevant documentary evidence in support of its claims. It was submitted that the assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act and the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution. The Ld. AR prayed 5. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) objected to the request of the assessee and submitted that adequate opportunities had already been provided to the assessee both by the Ld. AO and by the Ld. CIT(A). However, the assessee failed to avail such opportunities. Therefore, no further opportunity should be granted and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be upheld. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the appeal filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed for non-compliance and non- prosecution. Thus, effectively, the issues involved in the present appeal have not been adjudicated on merits either by the Ld. AO or by the Ld. CIT(A). The principles of natural justice require that a reasonable opportunity of being heard should be granted before any adverse decision is taken. Though the Ld. DR has submitted that adequate opportunity had already been granted, we are of the considered view that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee in the interest of substantial justice, particularly when the assessment has been framed under section 144 of the Act and the appellate order is also not on merits. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned order Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Rama Devi, 21-1-587 High Court Road, Rikabgunj High Court Road, Hyderabad, Telangana. 2 Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Signature Towers, Sy. No.6(P) of Kondapur, Sy.37(P) of Kothaguda, Opp. Botanical Gardens, Serilingampally (M), R.R. District, Hyderabad, Telangana- 500084. 3 Pr. CIT, Hyderabad. 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File