Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged additions of rental income made by the Assessing Officer under Section 147, which were upheld ex-parte by the CIT(A) for assessment years 2020-21 and 2021-22. The assessee argued that the rental income belonged to an HUF and had already been offered to tax by the HUF, resulting in double taxation, and requested more opportunity to present evidence.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erroneously focused on non-prosecution and failed to verify the assessee's claim regarding the income belonging to the HUF. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee an appropriate opportunity to produce all relevant details and records.
Key Issues
1. Whether the rental income assessed in the individual's hands actually belonged to the HUF and was already offered to tax, thereby avoiding double taxation. 2. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing ex-parte orders without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to present their case and evidence.
Sections Cited
147, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘SMC’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT :
These two appeals by the Assessee is directed against the two separate orders both dated 01.07.2025 of learned CIT(A), Hyderabad-11, Hyderabad, for the assessment year 2020-2021 & 2021-2022, respectively.
2 ITA.Nos.1421 & 1399/Hyd./2025 2. The assessee has raised identical grounds in these appeals for both the assessment years. The grounds raised by the assessee for the assessment year 2020-2021 are as under :
“The order of the Ld. CIT(A)-11, Hyderabad is erroneous in law as well as in facts of the case in upholding the addition made by the Lad. AO
The ld. CIT(A) ought to have observed that the Ld. AO has erred in understanding the basic fact of the case that the rental income belongs to Indra Reddy Nomula (HUF) and was already offered to tas, and as such the addition made would amount to double taxation, which is bad in law
The ld. AO has failed to consider the submissions of the Appellant and erred in making the addition without going into the facts of the case.
The loose sheets relied upon by the Assessing Officer are in the nature of dumb documents which do not bear any evidentiary value and has no basis for making the addition.
3 ITA.Nos.1421 & 1399/Hyd./2025 5. The Id. CIT(A) ought to have considered the adjournment request and provided another opportunity to the Appellant.
The Appellant craves to add/leave/alter/modify any other ground of appeal at the time of hearing”.
3. At the time of hearing, learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the learned CIT(A) has passed the impugned orders ex-parte, whereas the assessee sought adjournment of hearing in response to the notice issued by the learned CIT(A). He has further submitted that the additions were made by the Assessing Officer in the hands of the individual-assessee, whereas, the rental income in question belongs to Indra Reddy Nomula (HUF). Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) are bad in law and also amounts to double taxation because the HUF has already offered the said income to tax. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the learned CIT(A) has declined to grant further time to produce the relevant record before the learned CIT(A) to 4 ITA.Nos.1421 & 1399/Hyd./2025 establish that the income added in the hands of the assessee belongs to the HUF and was already offered to tax in the case of HUF. Thus, he has pleaded that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to present it’s case and produce the relevant details and evidences before the learned CIT(A).
4. On the other hand, Learned DR for the Revenue submitted that the learned CIT(A) has granted sufficient opportunities by issuing 03 notices to the notice, but, the assessee has failed to submit any information or evidences to substantiate the claim. He has relied upon the impugned orders of the learned CIT(A).
5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. The assessee has challenged the additions made by the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment orders u/sec.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short "the Act"] on account of rental income which the assessee claimed as belongs to the HUF and was also offered to tax in the hands of the HUF. The learned CIT(A) passed the impugned orders ex-parte
5 ITA.Nos.1421 & 1399/Hyd./2025 and confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Both the impugned orders are identically worded whereby the learned CIT(A) has declined to grant further opportunity and confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The relevant observation of the learned CIT(A) are in Paras- 6.3 to 6.3.1 as under :
“6.3. To examine the other grounds raised by the appellant, notices u/s. 250 of the I.T. Act was issued on 16.04.2025 & 29.04.2025, requiring the appellant for written submissions and furnishing the supporting evidences, to which no information or any submissions was filed, except filing requests for adjournments for the notices issued on 16.04.2025 and 29.04.2025. Subsequently, the appellant was provided three more opportunities by issuing notices u/s. 250 on 15.05.2025, 31.05.2025 & 19.06.2025. The appellant failed to submit any information before the undersigned and substantiate its grounds of appeal with evidences. 6.3.1. As there is no response to appeal notices, the appeal is liable to be dismissed in terms of verdicts of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the various High Courts. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of CIT v. B.N.Bhattacharjee and another (10 CTR 354) held that an appeal means an effective appeal –
"expression "prefer an appeal" would mean effectively prosecuting an appeal"
6 ITA.Nos.1421 & 1399/Hyd./2025
Purposefully interpreted, preferring an appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively pursuing it. If a party retreats before the contest begins, it is as good as not having entered the fray.
The Hon'ble MP High Court in Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CIT, 223 ITR 480(MP) has held that if a party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference. Similar view has also been taken in the case of CIT v. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del). Following the ratio of Multiplan (India) Ltd (supra), the Chennai Tribunal has also dismissed appeal for non-prosecution in the case of M/s Helios and Matheson Information Technology Ltd v ITO in dated 5.7.2011 for A.Y.2006-07. It is pertinent to add here that the laws assist those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied in the well known maxim "Vigilantibus non dormientibusjurasubveniunt". It means equity comes to the aid of the vigilant and not the slumbering. In all actions, suits and other proceedings at law and in equity, the diligence and careful plaintiff is favoured to the prejudicial of him who is careless. In view of the above, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.”
6. Once the assessee has challenged the additions made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the rental income belongs to the HUF and already offered to tax in the 7 ITA.Nos.1421 & 1399/Hyd./2025 hands of the HUF, then, the said fact ought to have been verified by the learned CIT(A) being a matter of record of the Department. Further, the learned CIT(A) has given more emphasis while dismissing the appeal on the non- prosecution on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders of the learned CIT(A) are set-aside and the matters for both the assessment years are remanded to the record of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, after giving an appropriate opportunity to the assessee to produce relevant details and record.
In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.
Order pronounced in the open Court on the conclusion of hearing i.e., on 11.11.2025.