Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘B‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Chary
Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 20/03/2023 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2018-19.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the A.Y 2018-19 on 29.08.2018 declaring total income of Rs.28,38,200/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for 3 reasons i.e. : (i) Reduction of income in revised return & claim of refund (ii) Capital Gains/Income on Sale of Property (iii) Income from House property
The assessment has been completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 3.3.2021 and determined the total income at Rs.3,53,21,707/- by making addition towards income from house property and income from capital gain being disallowance of inadmissible deduction claimed while computing the capital gain.
The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority, but neither appeared nor filed any details which is evident from Para 6 of the order of the learned CIT (A) where the appeal was posted for hearing on 4 occasions but there was no response from the assessee. Therefore, the learned CIT (A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards income from house property and income from capital gain on the ground that in absence of any submission with relevant evidences, it is assumed that the appellant does not have any explanation for the reasons given by the Assessing Officer to make additions and thus, by following the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Anil Goel vs. CIT (2008) 306 ITR 212 (P&H) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant without admitting additional evidences filed by the assessee to support its case in respect of additions made by the Assessing Officer towards income from house property and income from capital gain. Therefore, the issue may be set aside to the file of the learned CIT (A) to give one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the orders of the authorities below submitted that the assessee has neither appeared nor filed any details even though the appeal was posted for hearing on many occasions. Although the appellant claims to have submitted relevant details before the Assessing Officer but the learned CIT (A) recorded categorical finding that no submission has been made. Therefore, there is no reason to give one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee and thus, the order of the learned CIT (A) should be upheld.
We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the appellant neither appeared nor filed any details which is evident from Para 6 of the learned CIT (A)’s order. It is also an admitted fact that, though learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the on the presumption that the appellant is not interested in pursuing his own appeal and also not having proper explanation against the additions made by the Assessing Officer, but there is no whisper of any discussion in the order of the learned CIT (A) about the two additions made by the Assessing Officer and how the said additions are sustainable under law. It is well established principle of law that even in a case of dismissal of the appeal ex- parte for non-appearance of the appellant, but such appeals should be dismissed on merit on the basis of material available on record. Since the learned CIT (A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without discussing the issues on merit, in our considered opinion, the assessee deserves one more opportunity of hearing before the lower authorities. Thus, we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT (A) and restore the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer and also direct the Assessing Officer to reconsider the issue after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.