SHAKUNTALA DEVI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 654/HYD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 September 2024AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(A)'s file. A fresh opportunity of hearing and consideration of documentary evidence was granted to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-compliance with notices. The assessee, aged 70, claimed lack of proper notice service and unfamiliarity with online proceedings. The AO had made an addition of Rs. 5,16,88,000/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without proper service of notice and affording an opportunity to the assessee to present her case and documentary evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 282,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 54F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” , HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri D. Praveen, Sr. AR
Hearing: 09.09.2024Pronounced: 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.

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.

3.

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/-.

4.

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.

5.

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.

6.

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 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.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 11th September, 2024.

More judgments on Section 282

All 613 judgments and leading authorities on Section 282 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →