DEEPAK SHARMA, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-7(2), Hyderabad

ITA 619/Hyd/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4124 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-09-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-09-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 16-06-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MADAN MOHAN MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: S.RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 144; 250

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No.619 /Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Deepak Sharma Hyderabad [PAN : BSAPS4485A] Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-7(2) Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Sri S.Rama Rao, AR रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Sri Madan Mohan Meena, DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 02/09/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 02/09/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER K.NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the order dated 19/04/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld. CIT(A)”), Vadodara in the case of Deepak Sharma (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee preferred this appeal. 2. At the outset Ld. AR submits that the learned CIT(A) recorded that so many notices were issued and because of the nonappearance of the assessee he proceeded ex parte and dismissed the appeal in limine. It is the submission that the assessee never received any such notices, and he is not conversant with the emails or portals. His main plank of argument is that 2 even in the absence of the assessee since the assessment order is available before the learned CIT(A), learned CIT(A) could have proceeded to advert to the merits of the case and disposed of by referring to the various aspects of merits. He therefore submits that the provisions under section 250 (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) are not complied with. 3. Though the learned DR vehemently relied on the orders of the Revenue authorities, the fact remains that the learned CIT(A) did not refer to the facts nor did he dispose of the appeal on merits. Even in the absence of the assessee, it is always open for the learned CIT(A) to deal with the matter on merits, instead of dismissing the same. 4. Requirement of law under section 250 (6) of the Act is that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. Even in the absence of the assessee, it is always open for the learned CIT(A) to deal with the matter on merits instead of dismissing the same in limine. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not comply with the requirement of Section 250(6) of the Act and cannot be sustained. Learned AR submitted that since the learned Assessing Officer also finalized the assessment under section 144 of the Act, affording an opportunity to the assessee to prosecute his case before the learned Assessing Officer, by submitting the documents/evidence, the highest that would happen is that a cause could be decided on merits. We consider this request reasonable, and it would be in the interest of justice to remit the issue to the file of the learned Assessing Officer for considering the submissions of the assessee and take a fresh view in the matter. 3 6. With this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of the learned Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh. We direct the assessee to co-operate with the learned Assessing Officer in getting the matter disposed of on merits, without seeking any adjournments and the learned Assessing Officer to take a fresh look at the matter, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this the 2 nd day of September, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 02/09/2024 L.Rama, SPS 4 Copy forwarded to: 1. Shri Deepak Sharma, 14-3-161/1, Joshi Wadi, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2),Hyderabad. 3. The Pr.CIT, Hyderabad 4. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 5. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, HYDERABAD