Yadi Reddy Sana, Hyderabad V. ACIT., Circle-13(1), Hyderabad

ITA 103/Hyd/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Sri Yadi Reddy Sana, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which sustained the action of the Assessing Officer in computing short-term capital gains and denying certain deductions. The appellant contested the application of section 50C of the Income Tax Act, which pertains to the valuation of capital assets for tax purposes, arguing that the transactions did not result in capital gains and that the value adopted for stamp duty purposes was incorrectly treated as sale consideration. The tribunal noted the appellant's non-appearance and non-submission of documents at the lower appellate level due to unavoidable circumstances and decided to remand the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 108328 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-05-2023
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 07-02-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 148; 143(3); 50C; 142(1); 143(1); 250; 143(2)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M. This appeal is filed by the assessee, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 07.12.2022 for the AY 2010-11 on the following grounds : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals) is erroneous and unsustainable On facts and in law apart from being passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The Commissioner (Appeals) without considering the fact whether the notices has been served on the Appellant has decided without even considering the detailed Statement of facts filed before him. ITA.No.103/Hyd/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sri Yadi Reddy Sana 8-2-120/86/9/A/26 Rao Raju’s Colony Road No.2, Banjara Hills Hyderabad-500 034 PAN : AINPS9591H Vs. ACIT, Circle-13(1) Aaykar Bhawan Basheerbagh Hyderabad. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri A.V.Raghuram, Advocate Revenue by : Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR Date of hearing: 04.05.2023 Date of pronouncement: 15.05.2023 2 2. Without prejudice to above, the Commissioner of Income (Appeals) erred in sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer computing the STCG at Rs.3,66,92,158 by applying provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax Act. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner of Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the transactions in question were not in the nature of transfer resulting in capital gain. 4. Without prejudice to grounds 2 & 3 above, the Commissioner (Appeals] failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer while applying provisions of section 50C of the Act erred in not con side ring the factual explanation and evidences filed by the Appellant with reference to the dispute over title to the fand. 5. prejudice to the above grounds, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the Assessing Officer erred by treating the value adopted for stamp duty purpose as sale consideration, without referring the valuation of the impugned capital asset to a valuation officer as required under section 50C(2) of the Act, in view of the objects raised by the Appellant. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer in denying the deductions amounting to Rs.54,79,067 claimed by the Appellant in respect of commission paid while acquiring the property, cost of improvement and expenditure incurred in connection with transfer. 7. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing Rs.1,82,095 being 50% of the expenses claimed against the professional receipts.” 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual having receipts from his profession of practicing law and also from share of profit from Sana Yadireddy digital Studios. Assessee filed his return of income for the AY 2010-11 on 07.02.2012 admitting a total income of Rs.6,04,260/-. Return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 02.08.2012 proposing to reassess the income of the assessee. Thereafter, assessee filed reply requesting the Assessing Officer to treat the return of income filed earlier as the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. In compliance to the notices I ssued u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, assessee filed 3 all the details and evidences as called for by the Assessing Officer. After verifying all the details / information furnished by the assessee, Assessing Officer had completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act determining the total taxable income at Rs.1,90,16,960/- after making additions / disallowance towards short term capital gain at Rs.3,66,92,158/-. 3. Feeling aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of assessee on account of non-prosecution and on merits. 4. Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us. 5. Before us, ld.AR submitted that the learned lower authorities have decided the issue without considering the explanation offered by the assessee, as the assessee failed to appear due to unavoidable circumstances. Ld.AR submitted that as the assessee has sufficient cause from not putting in appearance before the ld.CIT(A), matter may kindly be remitted back to the authorities below for afresh adjudication. 6. Per contra, the ld.DR has raised objection for remanding the matter back to the file of lower authorities. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Assessing Officer in Para 2, held that when assessee was asked to furnish confirmations, assessee requested Assessing Officer to transfer the case to Range 6 stating that his case falls in the geographical jurisdiction of Range 6. However, as the 4 assessee did not, raise the issue of jurisdiction immediately after the receipt of the first notice, therefore this plea of assessee was not accepted. Subsequently, the assessee carried the matter before the ld.CIT(A), who had issued notice u/s 250 of the Act calling for the details in support of grounds of appeal. However, even after issuance of several notices, assessee failed to furnish any reply/submission on ground of appeal and have not participated before ld.CIT(A). Having faced with the above situation, ld.CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal on merits. 8. In light of the above, though, invariably the appeal of the assessee is required to be dismissed on account of non-furnishing of documents, however, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances one more opportunity is granted to the assessee to appear and contest the appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Hence, we remand back the appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) with a liberty to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to prove his case. On the date of hearing fix by the ld.CIT(A), the assessee shall file all the documents / evidence in support of his case and in that eventuality, the ld.CIT(A) shall call for the remand report from the Assessing Officer. In case, the assessee failed to file any documents in support of his case, ld.CIT(A) shall decide the matter in accordance with the law. Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 5 Order pronounced in the Open Court on 15 th May, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (RAMA KANTA PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (LALIET KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 15 th May, 2023. Thirumalesh Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Sri Yadi Reddy Sana, 8-2-120/86/9/A/26 Rao Raju’s Colony, Road No.2, Banjara Hills Hyderabad-500 034 2 ACIT, Circle-13(1),Aaykar Bhawan Basheerbagh,Hyderabad. 3 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 4 Guard File By Order