Surender Reddy Busireddy , Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1294/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8704 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: MOHD IQBAL HUSSAIN
• Keywords: Invalid notice; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 148; 139

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B - SMC, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1294/HYD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 SURENDER REDDY BUSIREDDY, HYDERABAD. PAN: ADAPB 6133 E VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 14(2), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI MOHD. IQBAL HUSSAIN REVENUE BY: SRI RAJAT MITRA DR DATE OF HEARING: 18/11/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18/11/2019 ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 6, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO. 10649/2018 - 19/B2/CIT(A) - 6, DATED 31/5/2019 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 & U?S. 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2011 - 12. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL: - 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AGAINST THE LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE AND PROBABILITIES OF CASE. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE NOTICE U/S. 148 IS ISSUED WITH AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION THAT THE VALUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY IS RS . 2,31,96,000/ - AS AGAINST THE CORRECT VALUE OF RS. 1,42,86,000/ - AND FURTHER THE ASSESSEE DECLARED THE CAPITAL GAINS IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN, WHEREAS, IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DECLARED CAPITAL GAINS IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN, THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE NOTICE U/S. 148 IS AN INVALID NOTICE. 2 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THE NOTICE U/S. 148 AS AN INVALID NOTICE AS THE SAME IS ISSUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME U/S. 139 OF THE ACT. 4. THE LD . CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING IMPROVEMENT CHARGES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE TO AN EXTENT OF RS. 16,75,000/ - . 5. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING ONLY RS. 5 LAKHS IMPROVEMENT CHARGES AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF RS. 16,75,000/ - . 6. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE A PPRECIATED THAT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM THE PERSONS WHO HAVE EXECUTED THE WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT TO AN EXTENT OF RS. 16,75,000/ - . 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, AMEND OR MODIFY THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, IF IT IS CONSIDERED NECESSARY. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR BRIEFLY NARRATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER WITHOUT PROVIDING AN 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 THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER, ON THE GIVEN DATES OF HEARING, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE TH E 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 MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HENCE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS IN ORDER AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE M AY BE DISMISSED. 3 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. THE LD. CIT (A) HAD POSTED THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 21/5/2019 AND 31/ 5/2019 . HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE DATES OF 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 I N THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE PRAYER OF THE LD. AR, 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 THE 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 M ERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON THE RECORD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH NOVEMBER, 2019. SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 18 TH NOVEMBER , 2019 4 OKK COPY TO: - 1) SURENDER REDDY BUSIREDDY C/O. MOHD. AFZAL, ADVOCATE, 402, SHERSONS RESIDENCY, 11 - 5 - 465, CRIMINAL COURT ROAD, RED HILLS, HYDERABAD - 04. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 14(2), IT TOWERS, AC GUARDS, HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT(A) - 6, HYDERABAD 4) THE PR. CIT - 6, HYDERABAD 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE