SHAKUNTALA DEVI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” , HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER
ITA No.654/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ms. Shakuntala Devi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 4(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN : AEEPD0217J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate. Revenue by: Shri D. Praveen, Sr. AR. Date of hearing: 09.09.2024 Date of pronouncement: 11.09.2024
O R D E R PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.
This appeal is filed by Ms. Shakuntala Devi (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 06.05.2024 for the A.Y. 2020-21.
2 ITA No.654/Hyd/2024
The grounds raised by the assessee read as under :
“ 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Id. CIT(A) is erroneous and unsustainable in law apart from being passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that proper notices were not served on the appellant as required under section 282 of the Act r.w. rule 127 of the Rules, and therefore Appellant could not put forth his case. 2. Without prejudice to the above, the Appellant is aged 70 is not fully acquainted with the online proceedings and emails, and therefore could not respond to notices allegedly sent. 3. The Id. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made by the AO of Rs.3,50,00,000/- by denying the claim of cost of indexed cost of improvement. 4. The Id. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made by the AO of Rs.3,50,00,000/- by denying the exemption claimed u/s.54F of the Act with respect to the deposit made in capital gains account scheme.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual filed her return of income on 15.02.2021 for A.Y. 2020-21 declaring total income of Rs.13,60,920/-. The case of the assessee was selected for Scrutiny on the issue of claim of large capital gain deduction/exemption. The assessment was completed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on 31.08.2022 making an addition of Rs.5,16,88,000/-.
3 ITA No.654/Hyd/2024
Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. AO, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee did not make any compliances to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Per contra, Ld. DR placed heavy reliance on the orders of the authorities below, and submitted that sufficient opportunity has already been given by the authorities, but the assessee failed to avail the same. He opposed the grant of further opportunity to the assessee.
We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. It could be seen from the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) that in spite of many opportunities given, the assessee failed to substantiate her case by providing necessary documentary evidence, which resulted in passing the orders without consideration thereof. It is a fact that the assessee does not stand to gain by not producing such documents. Be that as it may, now the assessee is ready to produce all such documentary evidence in support of her contentions and get the matter disposed of on merits. The highest that would happen by allowing an opportunity to the assessee is that a cause would be decided on merits. With this view of the matter, we are of the view that fresh opportunity should be given
4 ITA No.654/Hyd/2024
to the assessee and, accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for passing a fresh order on merits after affording the opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Grounds of appeal are answered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 11th September, 2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated 11th September, 2024. * TYNM, Sr.P.S.
Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Ms. Shakuntala Devi, 3-6-361, Flat No.303, R.R. Kuteer, Maharaja Colony, Basheerbahg, Hyderabad. Telangana - 500029. 2 The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 4(1), Hyderabad. 3 Prl.CIT, Hyderabad. 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order
