Sudhakara Rao kalakuntla , Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1274/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7855 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 30-08-2021
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-08-2021
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M PADMA
• Keywords: Capital Gains
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B - SMC, HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1274/HYD/2019 A.Y. 2011 - 12 SRI SUDHAKARA RAO KALAKUNTLA, HYDERABAD. PAN: ASVPK 3685 Q VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 14(2), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI A. SRINIVAS REVENUE BY: SMT. M. PADMA, DR DATE OF HEARING: 30/08/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01 /0 9 /2021 ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 6, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO.10704/2018 - 19/B2/CIT(A) - 6, DATED 20/06/2019 PASSED U/S. 144 R.W.S 147 AND U/S. 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2011 - 12. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOUR GROUNDS IN HIS APPEA L AND THEY ARE EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: - 1. THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER IS CONTRARY TO LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THAT THE PROPERTY SOLD WAS IN THE INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT IN THE STATUS OF HUF, THUS CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AND THUS DETERMINING THE CAPITAL GAINS AT RS. 12,22,030/ - . 2 3. THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THERE WAS ENOUGH MATERIAL ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE PROPERTY SOLD WAS HUF PROPERTY. 4. ANY OTHER GROUNDS WHICH THE APPELLANT MAY URGE EITHER AT OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING. 3. BEFORE ME, AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. A.O. HAD PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER U/S. 144 R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO DISMISSED THE APPEAL EX - PARTE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE LD. AR PRAYED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. A.O. IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ONE MORE OPPOR TUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD . LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND ARGUED THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER, ON THE GIVEN DATES OF HEARING, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. A.O. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR EVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AT THE TIME OF HEARING . T HEREFORE, THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO PASS EX - PARTE ORDERS BASED ON TH E MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HENCE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES DO NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. 4. ON EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE MATERIALS PLACED ON RECORD, I FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF TH E LD. DR. THE LD. CIT (A) AND THE LD. A.O. HAD POSTED THE CASE O N SEVERAL OCCASIONS. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD.AO AS WELL AS 3 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES . THEREFORE, THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES WERE LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO PASS EX - PARTE ORDERS AND ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL BASED ON TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I HEREBY REMIT THE ENTIRE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. A.O IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERITS BY PROVIDING ONE MORE OPPORTUN ITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. AT THE SAME BREATH, I ALSO HEREBY CAUTION THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTLY CO - OPERATE BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THEIR PROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDE R 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 THE 01 ST OF SEPTEMBER , 2021. SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 01 ST SEPTEMBER , 2021 OKK 4 COPY TO: - 1) SRI SUDHAKARA RAO KALAKUNTLA, PLOT NO.7, UBI COLONY, ROAD NO.7, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD 500 034. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 14(2), INCOME TAX TOWERS, MASAB TANK, HYDERABAD. 3) CIT (A) - 6, HYDERABAD. 4) THE PR. CIT - 6, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE