Mandugula Dayanand , Godavarikhani V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Karimnagar

ITA 1685/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7560 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 10-03-2021
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 18-11-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH SMC, HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1685/HYD/2019 A.Y. 2016 - 17 MANDUGULA DAYANAND, KARIMNAGAR. PAN: AFKPD 4738 H VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4, KARIMNAGAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI T. CHAITANYA KUMAR REVENUE BY: SHRI M.N. MURTHY NAIK, DR DATE OF HEARING: 10/03/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23 /03/2021 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) - 2, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO. 10328/2018 - 19/CIT(A) - 2, DATED 20/09/2019 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE AY: 20 16 - 17 . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVEN GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL AND THEY ARE EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: - 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT GIVING ANY FURTHER OPPORTUNITY. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 2 4. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN TREATING AN AMOUNT OF RS. 12,00,000/ - AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN TREATING AN AMOUNT OF RS. 8,13,856/ - AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 24,60,856/ - AS AGAINST THE INCOME / ADMITTED AT RS. 4,47,000/ - . 7. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3 . AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER WITHOUT PROVIDING P ROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD . LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHILE MAKING THE ADDITIONS AGGREGATING TO RS. 20,13,856 / - (UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.12,00,000 + RS. 8,13,856 AS SPECULATIVE INCOME) THE LD. A.O. ALSO DID NOT CONSIDER THE EXPL ANATIONS TENDERED AND CONFIRMATION LETTERS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 24,60,856/ - AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 4,47,000/ - . IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE PROVIDED WITH ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO PURSUE HIS CASE BEFORE THE LD. AO . LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND OBJECTED 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 N OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN BEFORE THE LD. A.O. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS PROVIDED WITH SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE, HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH COGENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ITS CASE . UNDER 3 THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, 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 S PASSED BY THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES DO NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 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 ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE GIVEN DATES OF HEARING. HENCE, THE LD. LD. CIT(A) LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO PASS EX - PARTE ORDER BASED ON THE MATERI AL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THIS SITUATION, I DO NOT FIND MUCH STRENGTH IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR. HOWEVER, ON PERUSAL OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE EXAMINED THE SUBMISSIONS MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE STATED NOT TO BE ACCEPTED BY THE LD. AO AND PASS A SPEAKING ORDER ON THAT REGARD . UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES , CONSIDERING THE PRAYER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND THE NATURE OF ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL, IN THE INTER EST OF JUSTICE, I HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. AO FOR DE - NOVO CONSIDERATION THEREBY 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 L D. REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THEIR PROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH 4 THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON THE RECORD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 5 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD MARCH , 2021. SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 23 RD MARCH, 2021. OKK COPY TO: - 1) SHRI MANDUGULA DAYANAND C/O. T. CHAITANYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO. 102, GOWRI APTS, URDU LANE, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4, KARIMNAGAR, TELANGANA. 3) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 2, HYDERABAD. 4) THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE