G. Anuradha, Hyderabad V. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-6, Hyderabad

ITA 1202/Hyd/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6493 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 18-07-2018
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P V SUBBA RAJU
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVURU R.L. REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1202/HYD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 G. ANURADHA, HYDERABAD. PAN ACZPG 1808M VS. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE 6, HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI A.V. RAGHURAM REVENUE BY : SHRI P.V. SUBBA RAJU DATE OF HEARING 18/07/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20/07/2018 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER DATED 13/01/2017 OF CIT(A) 12, HYDERABAD FOR AY 2 006-07. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE, ASSESSEE FILE D HER RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 6,78,57,250/- ON 30/07/2006. IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT THE AO DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 6,94,40,444/- BY MAKING THE FOLLOWI NG ADDITIONS: 1. RS. 13,87,248/- ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM BUSIN ESS. 2. RS. 5,92,44,126/- TOWARDS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAI NS 3. RS. 37,45,806/- TOWARDS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURC ES. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, THE ASSESSEE PREFE RRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 2 ITA NO. 1202/HYD/17 G. ANURADHA, HYD. 4. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLY THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE CIT(A), THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSE IN-LIMINE ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS NOTHING TO THE ASSESSEE TO DEFEND HER GROUNDS BEFORE HIM. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE I S IN APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S)-7, HYDERABAD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT I N LIMINI, IS ERRONEOUS, ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE ON FACTS AND I N LAW APART FROM BEING PASSED IN GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE G RANTED PROPER OPPORTUNITY IN AS MUCH AS THERE WAS REPRESEN TATION FROM THE APPELLANT'S END. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE GROUND, THE COMMISSIO NER (APPEALS) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE GROUNDS RAISED ON THE MERITS. 3. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) FAILED TO HAVE APPREC IATED THAT THE APPELLANT IS AN INVESTOR IN SHARES AND NOT TRADER IN SHARES. 4. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT DRIVEN BY P ROFIT MOTIVE BY TRADING SHARES BUT TO DERIVE DIVIDEND AND APPREC IATION OF THE INVESTMENT. 5. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECI ATED THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE APPELLANT IS AKIN T O INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUND. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) FURTHER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ENTIRE ACTIVITY WAS CARRIED ON BY THE PMS (PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT SERVICES) AND THAT THE APPELL ANT HAD NO ROLE IN THE DECISION OF INVESTING. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT TH E TIME OF HEARING, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE APPEAL. 6. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(A) WAS WRONG IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE FOR NON- APPEARANCE AND WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE MERITS OF T HE GROUNDS, WHICH IS GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE . 3 ITA NO. 1202/HYD/17 G. ANURADHA, HYD. 7. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND REMIT THE MATT ER BACK TO HIM WITH A DIRECTION TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASS ESSEE TO REPRESENT HER CASE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPO RTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE MATTER. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH JULY, 2018. SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAHM AN) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 20 TH JULY, 2018 KV COPY TO:- 1) SMT. G. ANURADHA, C/O S/SHRI K. VASANTKUMAR, AV RAGHURAM, P. VINOD & M. NEELIMA DEVI, ADVOCATES, 610 BABUK HAN ESTATE, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD 500 001. 2) ADDL. CIT, RANGE 6, IT TOWERS, AC GUARDS, HYD ERABAD - 04. 3) CIT(A) 12, HYDERABAD. 4) PR. CIT - VI, HYD. 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD. 6) GUARD FILE