KISHORE KUMAR POTLURI,SRIKAKULAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, SRIKAKULAM

Briefly stated facts are that the assessee along with 10 others was in possession of a property admeasuring 5339.2 sq.yds. situated at Survey No.347/1, 348, 346(O), 96/5, 96/6(N) bearing D.No.7.183A at Ward No.5, Block No.9, CTO Office area, West of Old NH Road, Narsannapeta, Srikakulam. This property was sold vide document No.758/2009 dated 06.05.2009 for a total consideration of Rs.79,29,000/-. As return of income was not filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer(AO) initiated scrutiny proceedings and issued statutory notice, which was served on the assessee. The AO has granted several opportunities to the assessee, but he did not appear before the AO. Therefore, the AO has completed the assessment u/s 144 and assessed the income at Rs.5,67,437/-.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 15 days. The Ld.CIT(A) condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. But on merits, the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Neither the assessee nor the representative appeared before the Ld.CIT(A). After considering the material available on record, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO and dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee.

On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before us by raising the following grounds : 1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad is not justified in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Authority by applying the provisions under sec.50C of the I.T.Act, without properly appreciating the facts of the case. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, ought to have granted a fresh opportunity for principles of natural justice so as to furnish the written submissions with necessary clarifications and evidences so as to get relief, instead of confirming the addition for not attending on the date mentioned by him. Hence, the appellant prays the Hon’ble Bench for relief. The tax effect on this ground is Nil. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, was not justified in confirming the decision taken by the Assessing Officer in arriving at the cost of acquisition and in adopting the sale consideration without taking into consideration the fact that the appellant did not receive sale consideration and the Assessing Officer had arrived at the Long Term Capital Gain only on the basis of Agreement-cum-Power of Attorney. Hence, the appellant prays the Hon’ble Bench to kindly consider the appellant’s contention in this regard, by granting relief. The tax effect on this ground is Nil. 4. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing, the appellant prays for relief.

The Tribunal has granted several opportunities to the assessee, but neither the assessee nor his representative appeared before the Tribunal. Finally, the matter was posted for hearing on 22.06.2022 as last chance and the Bench has given specific direction to the assessee that no further

The Ld.DR submitted that the assessee has neither shown any interest at any stage of the proceedings i.e. before the AO, CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal nor placed any evidence to substantiate his case. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) has also confirmed the addition of the AO. Hence, the Ld.DR pleaded that the orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) to be confirmed.

We have heard the Ld.DR and perused the orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A). Relevant part of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is extracted as under :

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.