Satyanarayana Rakky, Hyderabad, R.R.Dist V. ITO Ward-8(3) Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 505/HYD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2533 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 17-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S PRAVEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: P NAGRAJ
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A-SMC, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO. 505/HYD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SHRI RAKKY SATYANARAYANA, HYDERABAD. PAN AGIPR3809G VS. ITO, WARD 8(3), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P. NAGRAJ REVENUE BY : SMT. S. PRAVEENA DATE OF HEARING : 25-09-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25-09-2017 ORDER PER D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A)-2, HYDERABAD. THE ASSESSEE IS DEALER IN IRON SCRAP AND CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. V.S TRADERS. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT DECLARED TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 3,72,760/- WHEREAS THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY DETERMINING INCOME AT RS. 13,23,910/-, IN AN ORDER PASSED U/S 144 OF THE IT ACT. THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,51,150/- WAS DISPUTED BEFORE LD CIT(A) MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR ESTIMATING INCOME. LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT NONE APPEARED BEFORE HIM. ACCORDINGLY, ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O WAS CONFIRMED BY LD CIT(A). 2 ITA NO. 505/HYD/2017 SHRI RAKKY SATYANARAYANA, HYD . 2. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. AS COULD BE NOTICED FROM GROUNDS OF APPEAL THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT NO OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) BEFORE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL EX-PARTE. GROUND NO. 2 IN THIS REGARD READS AS UNDER: 2. THE CIT(A)-2 ERRED IN PASSING THE EX-PARTE ORDERS, AND NO INTIMATION WITH REGARD TO THE DATE OF HEARING WAS GIVEN TO THE APPLICANT OR THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ON RECORD AND THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD WITH THE CIT(A) TO SHOW THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN FOR THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE IN APPEAL. 3. THOUGH THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FROM TIME TO TIME, NEITHER ANY REPORT WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE A.O NOR THE CIT(A) FILE WAS VERIFIED BY THE LD. DR TO CONTRADICT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. LD. DR MAINLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL TO CONTRADICT THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES I AM CONSTRAINED TO HOLD THAT CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE ORDER WITHOUT PROPER SERVICE OF NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE. IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (A) IS SET ASIDE AND HE IS DIRECTED TO RECONSIDER THE MATTER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING ASSESSEE A PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017. SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) VICE PRESIDENT HYDERABAD, DATED: 25-09-2017. 3 ITA NO. 505/HYD/2017 SHRI RAKKY SATYANARAYANA, HYD . KRK 1 SHRI RAKKY SATYANARAYANA, C/O D. NO. 1-111 SRT, FLAT NO. 305 IIIRD FLOOR, SREE RAMA TOWERS, OPP. SBI MIYAPUR, RR DISTRICT, HYDERABAD. 2 ITO, WARD 8(3), HYDERABAD. 3 CIT(A)-2, HYDERABAD. 4 THE PR. CIT-2, HYDERABAD. 5 THE DR, ITAT HYDERABAD 6 GUARD FILE