Sandhya Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 461/Hyd/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2565 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-10-2021
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 31-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ESTHER N
• Assessee Lawyers: P MURALI MOHAN RAO
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 461/HYD/2016 A.Y: 2006 - 07 M/S. SANDHYA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD. PAN: AAJCS 1303 C VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE - 3(1), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI P. MURALI MOHAN RAO REVENUE BY: MS. ESTHER N, DR DATE OF HEARING: 04/10/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 07 /10/2021 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 3, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO. 1406/DC - 3(1)/CIT(A) - 3/14 - 15, 16/12/2015 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 254 AND U/S. 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2006 - 07. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVEN GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL AND THEY ARE EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: - 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL. 2 . THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER DATED 24/11/2014 WHEREIN THE TOTAL INCOME HAD BEEN DETERMINED AT RS. 4,11,17,282/ - . 2 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ANNUAL RENTAL VALUE ADOPTED AT RS. 64,80,000/ - IS ON MERE SUSPICION AND DOES NOT HAVE ANY BASIS TO SUSTAIN. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS NOT IN RECEIPT OF ANY RENT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE ANNUA L RENTAL ASSESSED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY I8N WHOSE AREA THE PROPERTY IS SITUATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVY OF PROPERTY TAX OR ANY OTHER TAX ON THE BASIS OF SUCH ASSESSMENT. ONLY WHEN SUCH ASSESSMENT IS NOT AVAILABLE, THEN AS PER THE RULE 5 OF IT ACT, THE A. O. OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED RENT RECEIVED BY P. SRINIVAS REDDY. 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT AS PER THE GROSS MAINTAINABLE RENT DEFINED IN (II) CLAUSE OF RULE 5 OF IT RULES, WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LET ONLY FOR A PART OF THE YEAR THE ANNUAL LET OUT VALUE SHOULD ALSO BE ADOPTED PROPORTIONATELY. 7. THE ASSESSEE MAY ADD, ALTER OR MODIFY OR SUBSTANTIATE ANY OTHER GROUNDS AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US STATING THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD CIT (A) 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 O F HEARING, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ITS REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). THEREFORE 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 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. 3 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) HAD POSTED THE CASE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON THE DATES OF HEARING. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT (A) WAS LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL EX - PARTE. IN THIS SITUATION, WE DO NOT FIND MUCH STRENGTH IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE PRAYER OF THE LD. AR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT (A) IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERITS BY PROVIDING ONE MORE O PPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. AT THE SAME BREATH, WE ALSO HEREBY CAUTION THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTLY CO - OPERATE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) IN THE PROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH THE LD. CIT (A) SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WI TH LAW AND MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON THE RECORD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 07 TH OCTOBER, 2021. SD/ - SD/ - (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 07 TH OCTOBER, 2021 4 OKK COPY TO: - 1) M/S. SANDHYA HOTELS PVT LTD., C/O. P. MURALI & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 6 - 3 - 655/2/3, 1 ST FLOOR, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD 500 082. 2) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3(1), HYDERABAD. 3) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 3, HYDERABAD. 4) THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE