Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘‘सी’’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी धु�ु� आर.एल रे�ी, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद� के सम� Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member & Shri S. Jayaraman, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.202/Chny/2020 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year:2011-12 Shri M. Harish Kumar, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. No. 45/1B, Clemens Road, Vepery, Non Corporate Ward 4(4), Chennai 600 007. Chennai. [PAN: AALPH1393Q] (अपीलाथ� /Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Shrreyans Mehta, Advocate ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 04.01.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 06.01.2021 आदेश /O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai dated 23.12.2019 relevant to the assessment year 2011-12. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged confirmation of various additions, however, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has mainly challenged the exparte order passed by the ld. CIT(A).
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 admitting total income of ₹.1,87,969/- earned
2 ITA No. 202/Chny/2020
from house property and income from other sources. As per the information received from the SRO, Redhills by the Department, the assessee has jointly sold property along with two others on 21.01.2011 for a sale consideration of ₹.82,17,300/-, which was not disclosed by the assessee in his return. Since the assessee has not admitted any capital gains arising out of sale of immovable property, the Assessing Officer believed that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, and accordingly notice under section 148 of the Act was served on the assessee on 18.04.2018. However, in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee has not e-filed the return of income. After considering the sale deed copy received from the SRO under section 133(6) of the Act as well as written submissions of the AR of the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act and assessed the total income of the assessee at ₹.43,54,599/- by working out the long term capital gains tax at ₹.41,08,650/-. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition.
On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard both the parties through video conferencing, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. On perusal of the appellate order, we find that the assessee was
3 ITA No. 202/Chny/2020
granted adjournment on 17.10.2019, 04.11.2019 & 19.11.2019 and there is no detail as to whether the case was posted for hearing subsequent to the above dates and by presuming that the assessee intend to dodge the proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) concluded the appellate order on 23.12.2019. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has prayed that one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee may be granted to represent his case before the ld. CIT(A). In view of the above, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and direct him to afford one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee to represent his case. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the Department, failing which, the appellate order already concluded shall stand confirmed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on the 06th January, 2021 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (S JAYARAMAN) (DUVVURUL RL REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, the 06.01.2021 Vm/- आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant, 2.��थ�/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु� (अपील)/CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयु�/CIT, 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR & 6. गाड� फाईल/GF.