Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, Hyderabad, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-8(2), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 1482/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2495 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-11-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S PRAVEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARSIMHA CHARRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1482/HYD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 MAHESH KUMAR AGARWAL, HYDERABAD [PAN: AGMPM9822C] VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI S. RAMA RAO, AR FOR REVENUE : SMT S. PRAVEENA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 31-05-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31-05-2017 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, HYDERABAD, DATED 29-09-2016, CONFIRMING THE PENALTY EX-PARTE. ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) MADE CERTAIN ADDITIONS U/S. 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT [A CT] AND LEVIED PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) TO AN EXTENT OF RS. 9,5 9,910/-. IN AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), LD.CIT(A) SEEMS TO HAVE ISSUED NOTICES AND SINCE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPEARED, HE HAS DISCUSSE D ABOUT CALLOUS AND INDIFFERENT ATTITUDE OF ASSESSEE AND DECIDE D THE APPEAL CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE AO. I.T.A. NO. 1482/HYD/2016 :- 2 - : 2. LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN RECEIP T OF ANY NOTICES AND ALSO FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS I NITIATED ARE BAD IN LAW AS THE AO DID NOT STRIKE-OFF THE INAPPR OPRIATE PORTION OF THE NOTICE TO KNOW WHETHER THE PENALTY WAS INI TIATED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PAR TICULARS OF INCOME. 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE ARE OF TH E OPINION THAT THE MATTER IS TO BE RE-EXAMINED BY THE LD.CIT(A). S INCE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT NO OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN BY THE C IT(A), WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD GET PROPER OPPO RTUNITY TO EXPLAIN FACTS WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCE AND CIRCUMSTANC ES WHY THE PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED. ASSESSEE IS ALSO FREE TO RAISE ANY OTHER LEGAL GROUNDS BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. TH EREFORE, WITHOUT GOING TO THE MERITS OF ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS, W E HEREBY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO CONS IDER THE APPEAL AFRESH AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST MAY, 2017 UPON CONCLUSION OF HEARING SD/- SD/- (K. NARSIMHA CHARRY) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 31 ST MAY, 2017 TNMM I.T.A. NO. 1482/HYD/2016 :- 3 - : COPY TO : 1. MAHESH KUMAR AGARWAL, HYDERABAD. C/O. SRI S. RA MA RAO, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO. 102, SHRIYAS ELEGANCE, 3-6 -643, STREET NO. 9, HIMAYAT NAGAR, HYDERABAD. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD. 3. CIT (APPEALS)-2, HYDERABAD. 4. THE PR.CIT-2, HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.