IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1565/HYD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1998-99 GOLDSTONE EXPORTS LTD., HYDERABAD. PAN AABCG 1937G VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(4), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P. MURALI MOHAN RAO REVENUE BY : SHRI D. SUDHAKAR RAO DATE OF HEA RING 27-05-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 05-06-2015 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.: THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 25/07/2012 OF LD. CIT(A)-XVIII, NEW DELHI FOR THE A Y 1998-99. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE, ASSESSEE A COMPANY IS CAR RYING ON BUSINESS IN TELECOM EQUIPMENT. FOR THE AY UNDER CON SIDERATION, ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30/11/1998 D ECLARING LOSS OF RS. 11,61,050. ASSESSMENT IN CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS O RIGINALLY COMPLETED U/S 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 29/02/2001 BY DETERMINING TAXABLE INCOME AT NIL. SUBSEQUENTLY, ON THE BASIS O F INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE EFFECT THAT ASSESSEE HAS SOLD IMMO VABLE PROPERTY OWNED BY IT IN AMARCHAND SHARMA COMPLEX, SP ROAD, S ECUNDERABAD HAVING BUILT UP AREA OF 29549.75 SQ.FT. FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 2 ITA NO. 1565 /HYD/2012 GOLDSTONE EXPORTS LTD. 1.25 CRORES VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 28/03/1998 TO M/S GOLDSTONE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. BUT HAS NOT DISCLOSED ANY CAPITAL GAIN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, AO REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 BY IS SUING A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 28/03/2003 CALLING UPON ASSES SEE TO FURNISH RETURN OF INCOME. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, A SSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 30/04/2003 DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 11,61 ,046. ULTIMATELY, AO COMPLETED ASSESSMENT BY COMPUTING SHORT CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 35,12,443 IN AN ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) RED WITH SE CTION 147 OF THE ACT ON 09/03/2004. BEING AGGRIEVED OF SUCH ASSESSME NT ORDER, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), HYDERABAD. HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENTLY, AS IT APPEARS FROM RECORD, ON ASSESSE ES REQUEST APPEAL WAS TRANSFERRED TO CIT(A)-XVIII, NEW DELHI. THE SAID APPEAL WAS DISPOSED OF BY CIT(A), NEW DELHI EX-PARTE BY CO NFIRMING THE DETERMINATION OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. BEING AGG RIEVED OF THE SAID ORDER OF CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US RAISING A NU MBER OF GROUNDS ON VARIOUS ISSUES INCLUDING THE VALIDITY OF EX-PARTE O RDER PASSED BY CIT(A). 3. LD. AR, AT THE OUTSET, SUBMITTED BEFORE US, ORDE R PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) EXPARTE WITHOUT AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEI NG HEARD IS IN GROSS VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE, HENCE, DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED, BY THE TIME LD. CIT(A) PASSED THE IMP UGNED ORDER, JURISDICTION OVER ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY BEEN TRANSFE RRED FROM NEW DELHI TO HYDERABAD. AS LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT HAVING AN Y JURISDICTION TO PASS IMPUGNED ORDER, THE SAME IS INVALID. IN SUPPOR T OF SUCH CONTENTION, LD. AR REFERRED TO THE ORDER DATED 09/1 1/2011 PURPORTEDLY PASSED U/S 127(2) OF THE ACT BY LD. CIT, DELHI-IV, NEW DELHI. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO HIS FILE GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE FOR RAISING ALL THES E ISSUES BEFORE HIM. 3 ITA NO. 1565 /HYD/2012 GOLDSTONE EXPORTS LTD. 4. LD. DR, THOUGH, SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A ), BUT, HE AGREED THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY CAN BE GIVEN TO AS SESSEE FOR REPRESENTING ITS CASE BEFORE LD. CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIE S AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS OTHER MATERIALS ON RECORD. THOUGH LD. AR EXPLAINING THE REASON FOR NON-APPEARA NCE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE US, HEARING NOTICES ISS UED BY LD. CIT(A) WERE NEVER SERVED ON ASSESSEE, BUT, ON GOING THROUG H THE NARRATION OF FACTS AT PARA 3.4 OF IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT(A ), IT APPEARS THAT NUMBER OF NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO ASSESSEE BY SPEED POST. BE THAT AS IT MAY, WITHOUT ENTERING INTO CONTROVERSY AS TO WHE THER NOTICES ISSUED WERE ACTUALLY SERVED ON ASSESSEE AND KEEPING IN VIE W THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNIT Y FOR REPRESENTING ITS CASE BEFORE LD. CIT(A), WE ARE INC LINED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND GRANT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT ITS CASE BEFORE LD. CIT(A). A S FAR AS THE CONTENTION OF LD. AR THAT LD. CIT(A), NEW DELHI HAS NO JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW T HAT ASSESSEE CAN RAISE THIS ISSUE ALONG WITH OTHER ISSUES AT THE TIM E OF HEARING OF APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). BEFORE DECIDING THE APPEA L, LD. CIT(A) MUST ALLOW ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT ITS CASE. FURTHER, WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT CONSIDERING THE ALLEGATIONS A ND COUNTER ALLEGATIONS REGARDING SERVICE OF NOTICES, IT WILL B E BETTER IF ASSESSEE IN ITS OWN INTEREST APPEARS BEFORE LD. CIT(A)-XVIII, N EW DELHI WITH A CERTIFIED COPY OF THIS ORDER AND OBTAINS DATE OF H EARING FOR REPRESENTING ITS CASE BEFORE HIM. 4 ITA NO. 1565 /HYD/2012 GOLDSTONE EXPORTS LTD. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS CONSIDERED T O BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH JUNE, 2015. SD/- SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 5 TH JUNE, 2015 KV COPY TO:- 1) GOLDSTONE EXPORTS LTD., C/O P. MURALI & CO., CA S., 6-3-655/2/3, 1 ST FLOOR, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD 500 082 2) ACIT, CIRCLE 1(4), HYDERABAD. 3 CIT(A)-XVIII, NEW DELHI 4) CIT-V, NEW DELHI 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD. DESCRIPTION DATE INTLS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON SR.P.S. 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR SR.P.S 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER VP 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./PS SR.P.S. 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.P S. 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.P.S. 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER 5 ITA NO. 1565 /HYD/2012 GOLDSTONE EXPORTS LTD.