IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A - SMC , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2326/HYD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 SMT. LALITHA REDDY PALLERLA, PLOT NO. 195, MAHENDRA HILLS, BALMRAI, SECUNDERABAD PAN: ARZPP 6884 H VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 10(5), IT TOWERS, HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI A.V. RAGHURAM REVENUE BY: SRI MURTHY NAIK, DR DATE OF HEARING: 12/12/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18 /12/2019 ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 6 , HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO. 10 12 4/20 17 - 18/ A3 /CIT(A) - 6, DATED 25/09/2018 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 & U/S. 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 20 10 - 11 . 2 . AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US 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. AO HAD MADE ADDITION BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT WITHOUT REFERRING THE MATTER TO THE LD. DVO. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD AO IN ORDER TO 2 PROVIDE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO P URSUE THE APPEAL . 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. CIT (A). IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS REPRESENTATIVE HAD REQUESTED F OR REFERRING THE MATTER TO THE LD. DVO AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE THE LD. AO. HENCE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS APPROPRIATE AND DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. 3 . I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERU SED 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 24/09/2018 . HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON THE ABOVEMENTIONED D ATE OF HEARING. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT (A) WAS LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL EX - PARTE. MOREOVER, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT REQUESTED FOR VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY BY THE LD. DVO. IN THIS SITUATION, I DO NOT FIND MU CH STRENGTH IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE PRAYER OF THE LD. AR, AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. AO IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL AFRESH BY PROVIDING ONE MORE OPPORTUNIT Y TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. I ALSO HEREBY DIRECT THE LD. AO TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE 3 LD. DVO FOR VALUING THE PROPERTY IN CASE THE ASSESSEE REQUESTS FOR THE SAME. AT THE SAME BREATH, I ALSO HEREBY CAUTION THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTLY CO - OPERATE BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THE IR 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. 4 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH DECEMBER, 2019. SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 18 TH DECEMBER , 2019 OKK COPY TO: - 1) SMT. LALITHA REDDY PALLERLA, FLAT NO.610, 6 TH FLOOR, BABUKHAN ESTATE, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD - 001. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 10(5), IT TOWERS, AC GUARDS, HYDERABAD - 004. 3) THE CIT(A) - 6, HYDERABAD 4) THE PR. CIT - 6, HYDERABAD 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE