ASHWIN KUMAR KILAMBI VENKATA,SECUNDERABAD V. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 216/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Ashwin Kumar Kilambi Venkata against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21. The appeals were initially dismissed in limine by the CIT(A) due to the absence of the assessee at the hearing, referencing a Supreme Court decision. The assessee's representative argued that the CIT(A) failed to provide reasons for the decision as required under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The Departmental Representative supported the CIT(A)'s decision, citing non-cooperation from the assessee. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked the necessary reasoning and thus set aside the order, remanding the case for a reasoned decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472489 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SM-A
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Other Referred Cases: Benny D'Souza & Ors. in Civil Appeal SIP(C) No.23809/2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURESH BABU
• Assessee Lawyers: A.V.RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “SM-A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No.216 & 217/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Ashwin Kumar Kilambi Venkata Secunderabad [PAN :AGKPV1901D] Vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(4) Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍ यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri A.V.Raghuram, AR रधजस्‍ व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Shri Suresh Babu, DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 13/03/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 13/03/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.: Aggrieved by the separate orders both dated 13/12/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [learned CIT(A)]-1, Hyderabad in the case of Ashwin Kumar Kilambi Venkata (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2019-20 and 2020-21, assessee preferred these appeals. Since the grounds raised in these appeals are identical, these appeals are heard together and disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. At the outset, learned AR submitted that in the appeals for both the assessment years, learned CIT(A) noticing the absence of the assessee at the time of hearing before him, dismissed the appeals in limine, basing on the 2 decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Benny D’Souza & Ors. in Civil Appeal SIP(C) No.23809/2023 dated 24.11.2023. However, at the same time, the main plank of the argument of the learned AR is that though the learned CIT(A) could have passed the ex-parte orders, the requirement of law under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) is that the learned CIT(A) shall advert to the points for determining the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision, which is conspicuously absent in this case. Accordingly, the Ld.AR prayed before the bench to set aside the issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh consideration. 3. Learned DR vehemently opposed this plea taken by the learned AR and submits that when the assessee does not cooperate with the proceedings and does not turnup, the learned CIT(A) has no option, but to proceed ex-parte to decide the appeal based on the material available on record. According to him, no new fact is brought to the notice to take a view different from the view taken by the learned Assessing Officer and therefore, the learned DR justifies the dismissal of the appeals in limine. 4. We have gone through the record in light of the submissions made on either side. The main plank of the assessee in appeals before the learned CIT(A) was that the learned Assessing Officer went wrong by making additions and the matter required review by the higher authorities though based on the same record. A reading of the impugned order clearly shows that there is paucity of reasoning for supporting the view taken by the learned Assessing Officer. Mandate of law under section 250(6) of the Act is that appellate commissioner shall dispose of appeals by order in writing, stating the points for determination, the reason thereon and the reason for such decisions. We are therefore of the considered opinion that for want of compliance with the legal requirement under section 250(6) of the Act, the matter needs reconciliation by the learned CIT(A). 5. With this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) to dispose them off with a reasoned order after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is made clear that the assessee shall appear before the learned CIT(A) and 3 cooperate with the disposal of the matter on merits, failing which, the assessee shall suffer the ex-parte orders, which will not be interfered with later on. Grounds are answered accordingly. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on this the 13th day of March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 13/03/2025 L.Rama, SPS Copy forwarded to: 1. Shri Ashwin Kumar Kilambi Venkata, 9-3-519/1, Srinilayam, Regimental Bazar, Secunderabad 2. The Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4),Hyderabad 3. The Pr.CIT, Hyderabad 4. The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 5. GUARD File TRUE COPY SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, HYDERABAD "