Bharathi Muktevi, Secunderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1373/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1654 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-06-2021
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 04-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D J P ANAND
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 50C

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1373/HYD/2019 A.Y. 2016 - 17 BHARATHI MUKTEVI, SECUNDERABAD. PAN: ACIPM 4867 D VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12(1), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI V. SIVA KUMAR REVENUE BY SHRI DJP ANAND, DR DATE OF HEARING: 15/06/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24 /06/2021 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY , A.M: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 1, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO. 10366/2018 - 19/ITO - 12(1)/CIT(A) - 1/HYD/2019 - 20, DATED 28/06/2019 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2016 - 17. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED EIGHT GROUNDS IN HER APPEAL AND THEY ARE EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: - (1). THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE. 2 (2) THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 27,56,000/ - BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. (3) THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE SENT THE NOTICES OF HEARING ONLY THROUGH E - MAILS, WHEN THE ASSESSEE INDICATED THAT SUCH NOTICES CANNOT BE SENT THROUGH EMAILS IN FORM NO. 35. (4) THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE BY SENDING THE NOTICES OF HEARING THROUGH POST SO AS TO REACH THE ASSESSEE. (5) THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE VOUCHERS AND BILLS, EVIDENCE THE COST O F IMPROVEMENT OF RS. 8,23,950/ - . (6) THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE SPECIFIC GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE TO OBJECT ADOPTION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C. (7) THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN N OT ADJUDICATING THE SPECIFIC GROUND THAT INDEXATION BENEFIT WAS NOT GRANTED BY THE A.O. WHILE COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. (8) ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE RAISED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WITH THE PRIOR PERMISSION FROM THE HONBLE TRIBUNA L. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2016 - 17 ON 23/02/2017 ADMITTING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 27,96,140/ - . THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1). THEREAFTER, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 5/12/2018 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 55,52,140/ - WHICH INCLUDES CERTAIN ADDITIONS VIZ., RS. 2,06,000/ - TOWARDS DISALLOWANCE OF IMPROVEMENT EXPENSES AND RS. 25,50 ,000/ - U/S. 50C OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LD. A.O., ASSESSEE CARRIED THE 3 MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). ON APPEAL, BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED TH E APPEAL EX - PARTE. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4 . AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US STATING THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. A.O. HAD ALSO NOT PROVIDED PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE VOUCHERS AND BILLS TO EVIDENCE THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IN RESPECT OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF RS. 8,23,950/ - . FURTHER, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. A.O. DID NOT GRANT THE INDEXATION BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE WHILE COMPUTING THE LONG - TERM CAPITAL GAINS. T HEREFORE , THE LD AR PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE ISSUES AFRESH AND TO PROVIDE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY 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 BE EN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE LD.AO HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE COGENT EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE HER CLAIM. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE MATTER CAME UP BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) , NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HER COUNSEL APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) TO PRESENT HER CASE . THEREFORE , THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO PASS ORDER S BASED ON THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE 4 ON RECORD. HENCE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ORDER S PASSED BY THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES DO NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. ON EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR. IT APPEARS THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAD POSTED THE CASE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON THE DATES OF HEARING. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT (A) WAS LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL EX - PARTE. IN THIS SITUATION, WE DO NOT FIND MUCH ST RENGTH IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL AS WELL AS THE PRAYER OF THE LD. AR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY REMIT THE ENTIRE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. AO IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE AP PEAL AFRESH AND DECIDE THE MATTER DE - NOVO IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERIT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD . AT THE SAME BREATH, WE ALSO HEREBY CAUTION THE ASSESSEE AND HER COUNSEL TO PROMPTLY CO - OPERATE BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AU THORITIES IN THE IR PROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER S IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON THE RECORD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 5 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 24 TH JUNE, 2021. SD/ - SD/ - (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 24 TH JUNE , 2021. OKK COPY TO: - 1) BHARATHI MUKTEVI, R/O. 258, THRIMURTHY COLONY, MAHENDRA HILLS, SECUNDERABAD 500 026. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12(1), FIRST FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT (A) - 1, HYDERABAD. 4) THE PR. CIT - 1, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE