K. Raja Sekhar, Sec'bad, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-2(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 1217/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4910 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-02-2020
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NILANJAN DEY
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Section: 143(3); 147

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A - SMC , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1217/HYD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 08 - 09 SRI RAJA S EK H AR KOLAPALLY, D.NO.40 - 295/2/2, JAWAHAR NAGAR, MOULA ALI, SECUNDERABAD 500 040. PAN: ARSPK 0684 M VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), SIGNATURE TOWERS, KONDAPUR ROAD, HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI A.V. RAGHURAM REVENUE BY: SRI NILANJAN DEY, DR DATE OF HEARING: 04/02/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20 /02/2020 ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 5, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO.0564/2014 - 15/CIT(A) - 5, DATED 29/02/2016 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 AND U/S. 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2008 - 09. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS ERRONEOUS, ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 2. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE GRANTED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY T O THE APPELLANT FOR PUTTING FORTH HIS CASE. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,40,000 BEING THE AMOUNT INVESTED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE SHARE CAPITAL OF M/S. E - LOAD SERVICES PVT LTD. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) 2 FAILED TO APPRECIAT E THAT THE APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE FOR THE INVESTMENT MADE WITH EVIDENCE AND THE SAME OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. 4. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE PRESUMPTION OF THE A.O. THAT THE SOURCES EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT WOULD HAVE BEEN UTILISED FOR SOME OTHER PURPOSES. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD CIT (A) IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PURSUE THE APPEAL . LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND ARGUED BY STATING THAT SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER, ON THE GIVEN DATES OF HEARING, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO PASS EX - PARTE ORDER BASED ON THE MATERIA LS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HENCE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. ON EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR. IT IS APPARENT FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT HE HAD POSTED THE CASE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT( A) ON THE DATES OF 3 HEARING. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT (A) WAS LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL EX - PARTE. IN THIS SITUATION, I DO NOT FIND MUCH STRENGTH IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE PRAYER OF THE LD. AR, AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT (A) IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERITS BY PROVIDING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. AT THE SAME BREATH, I ALSO HEREBY CAUTION T HE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTLY CO - OPERATE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) IN THE PROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH THE LD. CIT (A) SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON THE RECORD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH FEBRUARY, 2020. SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 20 TH FEBR UARY, 2020. OKK COPY TO: - 1) SRI RAJASEK H AR KOLAPALLY C/O. A.V. RAGHU RAM & P. VINOD, ADVOCATES, 610, 6 TH FLOOR, BABUKHAN ESTATE, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD - 1. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), SIGNATURE TOWERS, OPP. BOTANICAL GARDEN, KONDAPUR ROAD, HYDERABAD - 500 084. 3) THE CIT(A) - 5, HYDERABAD 4) THE PR. CIT - 5, HYDERABAD 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE