Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI DUVURU R.L. REDDY
PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13/01/2017 of CIT(A) – 12, Hyderabad for AY 2006-07.
Briefly the facts of the case are, assessee filed her return of income declaring total income of Rs. 6,78,57,250/- on 30/07/2006. In the scrutiny assessment the AO determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 6,94,40,444/- by making the following additions: 1. Rs. 13,87,248/- on account of income from business. 2. Rs. 5,92,44,126/- towards long term capital gains 3. Rs. 37,45,806/- towards income from other sources.
Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A).
2 ITA No. 1202/Hyd/17 G. Anuradha, Hyd. 4. Since the assessee failed to comply the notices issued by the CIT(A), the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assesse in-limine on the ground that there is nothing to the assessee to defend her grounds before him.
Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Hyderabad, dismissing the appeal of the Appellant in limini, is erroneous, illegal and unsustainable on facts and in law apart from being passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have granted proper opportunity in as much as there was representation from the Appellant's end.
Without prejudice to above ground, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing the grounds raised on the merits.
The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to have appreciated that the Appellant is an investor in shares and not trader in shares.
The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the investment made by the Appellant is not driven by profit motive by trading shares but to derive dividend and appreciation of the investment.
The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the investment made by the Appellant is akin to investment in mutual fund. The Commissioner (Appeals) further failed to appreciate that the entire activity was carried on by the PMS (Portfolio Management Services) and that the Appellant had no role in the decision of investing.
For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to allow the appeal.”
In the grounds of appeal, the assessee contended that the CIT(A) was wrong in dismissing the appeal of the assessee for non- appearance and without appreciating the merits of the grounds, which is gross violation of principles of natural justice.
3 ITA No. 1202/Hyd/17 G. Anuradha, Hyd. 7. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. After considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that in the principles of natural justice, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remit the matter back to him with a direction to give one more opportunity to the assessee to represent her case and thereafter decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the matter.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open Court on 20th July, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 20th July, 2018 kv Copy to:- 1) Smt. G. Anuradha, C/o S/Shri K. Vasantkumar, AV Raghuram, P. Vinod & M. Neelima Devi, Advocates, 610 Babukhan Estate, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad – 500 001. 2) Addl. CIT, Range – 6, IT Towers, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 04. 3) CIT(A) – 12, Hyderabad. 4) Pr. CIT - VI, Hyd. 5) The Departmental Representative, I.T.A.T., Hyderabad. 6) Guard File