Janardhan Julakanti , Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1776/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9408 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 08-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 144; 234B

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1776/Hyd/2019 A.Y. 2016-17 Sri Janardhan Julakanti, Hyderabad-500 056. PAN: ADNPJ 2544 A VS. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Santi Pawan for Pavan Kumar Chakrapani Revenue by: Sri P. Suresh, DR Date of hearing: 16/09/2021 Date of pronouncement: 20/09/2021 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-7, Hyderabad in appeal No. 0178/CIT(A)-7/2018-19, dated 23/10/2019 passed U/s. 144 r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised sixteen grounds in his appeal and they are extracted herein below for reference:- “1. The order of the Ld. Authorities below in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities and the facts and circumstances in the appellant’s case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have given opportunity before passing the appellate order, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 2 3. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed on a total income of Rs. 66,94,576/-, as against the income returned of Rs. 3,38,600/- under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The Learned authorities below are not justified in computing the capital gain of Rs. 63,55,976/- under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The Learned Authorities below are not justified in considering the agreement of sale executed by the appellant, and thereby transferring the property far beyond the year in which the appellant has executed the sale deed, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The Learned Authorities below ought to have considered the fact that under section 2(47) of the Act r.w.s 53A of transfer of property act, the transfer of the property has been taken place in the year in which the sale agreement is executed and the possession is handed over, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The Learned Authorities below failed to appreciate the fact that the property under consideration was sold through agreement of sale and the document was notarised prior to the sale deed executed on insistence of the buyer, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The Learned Authorities below are not justified in taking the stamp duty value of the property on document number 10970, at Rs. 15,00,000/- as the property has been previously sold by agreement of sale and document being notarised and physical possession handed over by the appellant to the party under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The Learned Authorities below are not justified in taking the stamp duty value of the property on document number 10971, at Rs. 16,65,000/- as the property hs been previously sold by agreement of sale and document being notarised and physical possession handed over by the appellant to the party under the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The Learned Authorities below are not justified in taking the stamp duty value of the property on document number 11049, at Rs, 15,00,000/-, as the property has been previously sold by agreement of sale and document being notarised and physical possession handed over by the appellant to the party under the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. The Learned Assessing Officer is not justified in taki9ng the stamp duty value of the property on document number 27270, at Rs. 17,30,000/- as the property has been previously sold by agreement of sale and document being notarised and physical possession handed over by the appellant to the party under the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. Without prejudice to waiver of interest under the provisions of section 234A and 234B of the Act, the 3 appellant denies himself liable to be charged to such interest under the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. The appellant denies himself liable to be charged to interest under section 234A of the Act, a sum of Rs, 92,288 under section 234B of the Act, a sum of Rs. 4,35,072/- under the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver as per the parity of reasoning of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Karanvir Singh 349 ITR 692. The appellant denies itself liable to be charged to interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act under the circumstances of the case. 15. The appellant craves leave toa dd, alter delete or substantiate any of the grounds urged above. 16. In view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed in the interest of justice and equity.” 3. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before us that the Ld. A.O. had passed ex-parte order U/s. 144 of the Act and the assessee was not afforded proper opportunity of being heard. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has also dismissed the appeal ex-parte without considering the submissions of the assessee. It was therefore pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld A.O. in order 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 been provided to the assessee however, on the given dates of hearing, neither the assessee nor his Representative appeared before the Ld. A.O. It was further submitted that even before the Ld. CIT(A) none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor filed any details. Hence it was submitted that the Ld. Revenue 4 Authorities had no other option but to pass orders based on the materials available on record. It was therefore pleaded that the orders 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. The Ld. CIT (A) and the Ld. A.O. had posted the case on several occasions. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the Ld.AO. Before the Ld. CIT(A), though the case was adjourned on several occasions, the Ld. AR did not furnish the details. Therefore, the Ld. Revenue Authorities were left with no other option except to adjudicate the appeal based on the material available on record. In this situation, We do not find much strength 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 matter back to the file of Ld. A.O. in order to consider the appeal afresh on merits by providing one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. At the same breath, We also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate before the Ld. Revenue Authorities in their proceedings failing which the Ld. Revenue Authorities shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order 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 the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove. Pronounced in the open Court on the 20 th September, 2021. Sd/- Sd/- (S.S. GODARA) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 20 th September, 2021. OKK Copy to:- 1) Janardhan Julakanti, 29-1440/1/4, J.K. Colony, Kakatiya Nagar, Neeredmet, Telangana – 500 056. 2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), IT Towers, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 3) The CIT (A)-7, Hyderabad. 4) The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7, Hyderabad. 5) The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 6) Guard File