Vuchuru Anila Prem Reddy, London V. ITO, (International Taxation), Nellore

ITA 110/Hyd/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Vuchuru Anil Prem Reddy, a Non-Resident Indian, who appealed against the ex-parte order of the learned CIT (A) confirming the addition of Rs.24,82,744 as Long-Term Capital Gain for the Assessment Year 2008-09. The assessee, acting as a General Power of Attorney holder, sold three immovable properties and was subsequently treated as a representative assessee under section 163(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer's initial assessment was completed under section 144 due to non-compliance by the assessee to statutory notices. The CIT (A) upheld this assessment in an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-appearance. The Tribunal, considering the assessee's non-receipt of notices and lack of legal advice, decided to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 302934 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-02-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 144; 144C

Judgement Text

ITA 110 of 2023 Vuchuru Anil Prem Reddy Page 1 of 6 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-President AND Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member ITA No. 110/Hyd/2023 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Vuchuru Anil Prem Reddy, London PAN:AKHPR4950P Vs. Income Tax Officer (International Taxation) Nellore (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani, CA Revenue by: Shri M. Vijay Kumar, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 20/07/2023 Date of pronouncement: 21/07/2023 ORDER Per R.K. Panda, A.M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the ex-parte order dated 16.09.2022 of the learned CIT (A)-, Delhi relating to A.Y.2008-09. 2. There is a delay of 87 days in filing of this appeal by the assessee for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents of the condonation petition filed along with the affidavit and after hearing the learned DR, the delay in filing of this appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. ITA 110 of 2023 Vuchuru Anil Prem Reddy Page 2 of 6 3. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the ex-parte order of the learned CIT (A) in upholding the re-assessement proceedings and confirming the addition of Rs.24,82,744/- made by the Assessing Officer as Long-Term Capital Gain. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a Non-Resident Indian. During the financial year 2007-08 relevant to the impugned A.Y, the assessee had sold 3 immovable properties on 6.10.2007 in the capacity of General Power of Attorney holder of Sri/Smt. Vuchuru Sadhana Reddy, 32, Copt Royd Grove, Yeadon, Leeds, LS197HQ, UK. Since the assessee had acted as a GPA Holder on behalf of Sri/Smt. Vuchuru Sadhana Reddy, UK and executed the sale document, the Assessing Officer issued a show-cause letter dated 27.3.2015 asking the assessee to explain as to why he should not be treated as representative assessee u/s 163(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as Sri/Smt. Vuchuru Sadhana Reddy, UK was in receipt of her share of sale consideration through the assessee. Since the assessee did not respond to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 of the I.T. Act and determined the Long-Term Capital Gain at Rs.24,82,744/- in the hands of the assessee by observing as under: ITA 110 of 2023 Vuchuru Anil Prem Reddy Page 3 of 6 Long Term Capital Gains in the hands of the assessee:Rs.24,82,744”. ITA 110 of 2023 Vuchuru Anil Prem Reddy Page 4 of 6 5. Before the learned CIT (A), the assessee filed an appeal. However, due to non-appearance of the assessee despite number of opportunities granted, the learned CIT (A) in the ex- parte order passed by him confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is an NRI and due to non-receipt of the statutory notices and due to lack of proper legal advice, he could not pursue the matter either before the Assessing Officer or before the learned CIT (A). The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate his case before the Assessing Officer. 8. The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly opposed the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the assessee. He submitted that a perusal of the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT (A) shows that the assessee has scant regard for the statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT (A). He accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT (A) should be confirmed. In his alternate argument he submitted that some cost should be levied on the assessee. 9. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that due to non-compliance of the assessee to the statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 144 r.w.s. 144C determining the Long-Term Capital Gain in the ITA 110 of 2023 Vuchuru Anil Prem Reddy Page 5 of 6 hands of the assessee at Rs.24,82,744/-. We find despite three opportunities granted by the learned CIT (A), the assessee did not appear before the learned CIT (A) for which the learned CIT (A) was constrained to pass ex-parte order dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the assessee that since the assessee was an NRI and was staying abroad he could not receive the notices and due to lack of proper legal advice, could not pursue the matter before the lower authorities. It is his argument that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case by producing the relevant details to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the Assessing Officer on the appointed day without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the Assessing Officer is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21 st July, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (R.K. PANDA) VICE-PRESIDENT Hyderabad, dated 21 st July, 2023 Vinodan/SPS ITA 110 of 2023 Vuchuru Anil Prem Reddy Page 6 of 6 Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Sri/Smt. Vuchuru Anila Prem Reddy, No.101, Wheatsheaf Close, ISLE of Dogs Longon E 1494Y UK London 2 Income Tax Officer (International Taxation), Nellore 524003 3 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 4 Guard File By Order