Ch.Narasimha Rao, Hyderabad V. Dy.CIT,Circle-13(1), Hyderabad

ITA 110/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 91540 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: P MURALI MOHAN RAO
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 110/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 CH. NARASIMHA RAO, HYDERABAD PAN AALPC4683L VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CIRCLE 13(1), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P. MURALI MOHAN RAO REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJAT MITRA DATE OF HEARING 19-03-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01-04-2015 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST OR DER DATED 13/12/2012 PASSED BY LD. CIT(A)-II, HYDERABAD FOR A .Y. 2006-07. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE, ASSESSEE AN INDIVIDUAL DE RIVES INCOME FROM PENSION AS WELL AS SHARE INCOME FROM M/S RAMA TALKIES. FOR THE AY UNDER CONSIDERATION, ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN O F INCOME ON 31/07/06 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 61,690. DURI NG THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THR EE OTHER PERSONS HAS SOLD A PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1 CR ORE, OUT OF WHICH ASSESSEES SHARE WAS RS. 46,31,500. ON HIS SHARE OF ASSESSEE, ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN NET CAPITAL GAIN AT RS. 10,87,67 2. AO AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SALE DEED FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS SIGNE D THE SALE DEED AS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF HIS TWO BROT HERS. HE FURTHER NOTICED THAT AS PER THE RECITAL OF THE SALE DEED, A SSESSEE HAS ADMITTED OF HAVING CONTRIBUTED HIS OWN FUNDS FOR TH E PURCHASE OF LAND 2 ITA NO. 110/HYD/2013 CH. NARASIMHA RAO ON BEHALF OF HIS BROTHERS, WHO ARE STAYING IN USA. THUS, AO WHEN CALLED UPON ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN, AS STATED BY HIM, ASSESSEE IN HIS LETTER DATED 17/12/08 SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE PLO T WAS PURCHASED BY HIS BROTHERS, BUT, SINCE HE IS UNABLE TO PRODUCE AN Y CONFIRMATIONS FROM HIS BROTHERS, WHO WERE RESIDING IN USA, CAPIT AL GAIN FALLING INTO THE SHARE OF HIS TWO BROTHERS CAN BE ASSESSED AT HI S HAND. ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE, AO C OMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY ADDING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 34,82,308 BE ING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN FALLING INTO THE SHARE OF ASSESSEES T WO BROTHERS, NAMELY, CH. RAMAKRISHNA RAO AND CH. VENKATESWARA RAO. BEING AGGRIEVED OF THE ADDITION MADE BY AO, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A), 3. LD. CIT(A) ON PERUSING THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE NOTICED THAT THERE IS A DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE REASONS SHOWN FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE SAME. ACCORDING LY, SHE HELD THAT DELAY CANNOT BE CONDONED. HAVING HELD SO, LD. CIT(A ) ALSO PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERIT BY UPHOLDING THE ADDI TION MADE BY AO. BEING AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES AND P ERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. THE LIMITED GRIEVANCE OF ASSES SEE IS LD. CIT(A) SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED THE APPEAL EXPARTE WITHOUT AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ASSESSEE. LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US, AN OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GRANTED TO ASSESSE E TO EXPLAIN HIS CASE BEFORE LD. CIT(A). LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS NO SERIOUS OBJECTION, IF ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY IS GIVEN TO ASSE SSEE TO EXPLAIN/REPRESENT HIS CASE BEFORE LD. CIT(A). 5. HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND THE NATURE OF DISPUTE, WE ARE INCLINED TO AFFORD ONE MO RE OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT HIS CASE BEFORE LD. CIT(A). A CCORDINGLY, WE SET 3 ITA NO. 110/HYD/2013 CH. NARASIMHA RAO ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND REMIT TH E MATTER BACK TO HIM FOR DECIDING AFRESH AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPP ORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ASSESSEE. LD. CIT(A) MUST CONSIDER ASSESSE ES EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL AND IF SHE IS SATISFIED WITH THE REASONS SHOWN BY ASSESSEE, SHE MAY PROCEED TO DECID E APPEAL ON MERIT AFTER CONDONING THE DELAY. WE ALSO MAKE IT CL EAR, ASSESSEE MUST COOPERATE IN DISPOSAL OF APPEAL BY APPEARING O N THE DATE OF HEARING FIXED BY LD. CIT(A). 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 ST APRIL, 2015. SD/- SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 1 ST APRIL, 2015 KV COPY TO:- 1) CH. NARASIMHA RAO, C/O P. MURALI & CO., CAS, 6-3 -655/2/3, 1 ST FLOOR, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD 500 082. 2) DCIT, CIRCLE 13(1), HYDERABAD 3) CIT(A)-II, HYDERABAD 4) CIT-I, HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD.