← Back to search

ASHWIN KUMAR KILAMBI VENKATA,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

PDF
ITA 216/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 March 20253 pages

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCHES “SM-A”, HYDERABAD

BEFORE
SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
&
SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आ.अपी.सं / ITA No.216 & 217/Hyd/2025
(निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20 & 2020-21)

Ashwin Kumar Kilambi Venkata
Secunderabad
[PAN :AGKPV1901D]
Vs. ACIT
Central Circle-1(4)
Hyderabad

अपीलधर्थी / Appellant

प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri A.V.Raghuram, AR
रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue by:
Shri Suresh Babu, DR

सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing:
13/03/2025
घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 13/03/2025

आदेश / ORDER
PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.:
Aggrieved by the separate orders both dated 13/12/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [learned CIT(A)]-1, Hyderabad in the case of Ashwin Kumar Kilambi Venkata (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2019-20 and 2020-21, assessee preferred these appeals.
Since the grounds raised in these appeals are identical, these appeals are heard together and disposed of by this consolidated order.
2. At the outset, learned AR submitted that in the appeals for both the assessment years, learned CIT(A) noticing the absence of the assessee at the time of hearing before him, dismissed the appeals in limine, basing on the 2

decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Benny D’Souza & Ors. in Civil Appeal SIP(C) No.23809/2023 dated 24.11.2023. However, at the same time, the main plank of the argument of the learned AR is that though the learned CIT(A) could have passed the ex-parte orders, the requirement of law under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) is that the learned
CIT(A) shall advert to the points for determining the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision, which is conspicuously absent in this case.
Accordingly, the Ld.AR prayed before the bench to set aside the issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

3.

Learned DR vehemently opposed this plea taken by the learned AR and submits that when the assessee does not cooperate with the proceedings and does not turnup, the learned CIT(A) has no option, but to proceed ex-parte to decide the appeal based on the material available on record. According to him, no new fact is brought to the notice to take a view different from the view taken by the learned Assessing Officer and therefore, the learned DR justifies the dismissal of the appeals in limine. 4. We have gone through the record in light of the submissions made on either side. The main plank of the assessee in appeals before the learned CIT(A) was that the learned Assessing Officer went wrong by making additions and the matter required review by the higher authorities though based on the same record. A reading of the impugned order clearly shows that there is paucity of reasoning for supporting the view taken by the learned Assessing Officer. Mandate of law under section 250(6) of the Act is that appellate commissioner shall dispose of appeals by order in writing, stating the points for determination, the reason thereon and the reason for such decisions. We are therefore of the considered opinion that for want of compliance with the legal requirement under section 250(6) of the Act, the matter needs reconciliation by the learned CIT(A). 5. With this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) to dispose them off with a reasoned order after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is made clear that the assessee shall appear before the learned CIT(A) and 3

cooperate with the disposal of the matter on merits, failing which, the assessee shall suffer the ex-parte orders, which will not be interfered with later on.
Grounds are answered accordingly.
6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on this the 13th day of March, 2025. (K. NARASIMHA CHARY)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Hyderabad,
Dated: 13/03/2025
L.Rama, SPS

ASHWIN KUMAR KILAMBI VENKATA,SECUNDERABAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD | BharatTax