MADANESHWAR VUPPALA,HYDERABAD vs. I.T.O WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

The assessee has raised the following grounds and additional grounds:

3. At the outset, the learned AR submitted that the additional grounds raised by the assessee are required to be adjudicated since the assessee has not raised this legal ground before the learned CIT (A) and therefore, the same may be admitted. Our attention was drawn to the following additional ground raised by the assessee:-

The Re-opening of assessment for the assessment-year 2013-2014 on 31/03/2021 is without jurisdiction, Invalid and bad in law as the notice u/s.148 has been issued on 31/03/2021 which is beyond six years from the end of assessment-year 2013-2014 and therefore the entire assessment made u/s.147 r.w.144 of the I.T Act, 1961 on 30/03/2022 assessing the Appellant on an Income of Rs.2,66,31,310 has no legs to stand and is to be quashed.

The learned DR objected to the admission of the additional grounds.

After hearing both sides, we find that the ground raised by the assessee are legal in nature and therefore we deem it appropriate to admit the additional grounds now raised before us for the above-said purposes we may fruitfully rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC reported in 229 ITR 383 (S.C). Accordingly, the additional grounds are admitted.

In the present case the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order ex parte while deciding the assessee's appeal. In the order the Ld. CIT(A) mentioned as under :-

The learned AR submitted that the appeal of the assessee is required to be allowed by allowing the additional grounds raised by the assessee, which are reproduced herein above. It is the submission of the learned AR that the reopening done by the Assessing Officer is required to be annulled on the ground that the group running was done by the assessing officer beyond. Of six years. The conjoined reading of sections 148 and 149 makes it abundantly clear that the reopening of the assessment beyond the period of 6 years is not permissible.

Per contra, the learned DR submitted that the issue whether the reassessment made by the Assessing Officer was beyond a period six years or is not is required to be examined based on the facts by the lower authority and this issue could not be decided at this stage, in the light of fact that this ground has not been raised by the assessee before authorities below.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the learned CIT (A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us by both sides. We find the learned CIT (A) has passed the ex-parte order since the assessee did not comply with the notices issued by the learned CIT (A) and before the Assessing Officer also the assessee did not comply with the statutory notices issued and failed to submit any documents/evidences. In this view of the matter, we deem it proper to remand back the matter back to the file of the learned CIT (A) with a direction to pass a reasonable speaking order based on the “additional grounds” now raised before us after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The learned CIT (A) is also directed to examine whether the reopening of the assessment made by the Assessing Officer was within the time period prescribed by the Act or not. After examining this aspect ld.CIT(A) shall proceed further to decide the other grounds on merit. Needless to say, that the above said exercise is required to be carried out by the learned CIT (A) after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the learned CIT (A) by filing proper documents/evidences on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext. We hold and direct accordingly.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.