M Bal Reddy, Hyd, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-16(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 695/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9924 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-07-2021
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PAVITRAN KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: P VINOD
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 695/HYD/2018 AY 2005 - 06 SHRI M. BAL REDDY, HYD. 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A BENCH : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENC E ) BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 695 /HYD./ 20 16 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 05 - 06 SRI M. BAL REDDY VS. ITO, WARD 16 (1) HYDERABAD HYDERABAD [ PAN: ADNPM3674J ] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI P. VINOD, ADV. FOR REVENUE : SH. PAVITRAN KUMAR , D.R DATE OF HEARING : 1 4 /07/ 202 1 DATE OF PRONOUNCEM ENT : 26 / 07 /202 1 O R D E R PER P. MADHAVI DEVI, JM TH IS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2005 - 06 AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) - 4, HYDERABAD DATED 18.02.2016. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 1 . ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) - 4, HYDERABAD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS ERRONEOUS, ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 2. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN PASSING EXPARTE ORDER WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY AND WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ALL ALONG PURSUING ITS APPEAL AND THE SAME IS PASSED IN GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. ITA NO. 695/HYD/2018 AY 2005 - 06 SHRI M. BAL REDDY, HYD. 2 3. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 50,50,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS. 4. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRE D IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5 LAKHS BEING THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM MR. LAXMAN RAO TOWARDS SALE OF PLOTS AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 5 . THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING A SUM OF RS.12. 50 LAKHS RECEIVED FROM ST. MARY'S COLLEGE TOWARDS CONSIDERATION FOR SALE OF LAND AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING T HE SUM OF RS.33 LAKHS RECEIVED TOWARDS ADVANCE FOR SALE OF LAND AS UNEXPLAINED IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE BUYERS HAVE CONFIRMED THE SAME. 7. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE GROUND, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT SINCE THE BUYERS APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FILED RECEIPTS FOR RS.20 LAKHS, THE ADDITION TO THAT EXTENT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED. 8. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE GROUNDS, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.9,68,200 / - WHICH WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED WITH THE LEAVE OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE APPEAL. 2. LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE NAME OF ASSESSEES COUNSEL IS RECOR DED AS HAVING APPEARED, ONLY ONE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS GIVEN AND ASSESSEE S COUNSEL COULD NOT APPEAR ON SUCH DATE AND THE CIT(A) PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL EX PARTE THE ASSESSEE . LD.COUNSEL , THEREFORE , PRAYED THAT ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY OF HEAR ING ON MERITS MAY BE GIVEN TO ASSESSEE. LD.DR WAS ALSO HEARD. ITA NO. 695/HYD/2018 AY 2005 - 06 SHRI M. BAL REDDY, HYD. 3 3. HAVING REGARD TO RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT ONLY ONE DATE WAS GIVEN TO ASSESSEE ON WHICH DATE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REPRESENTED AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT H EARD ON MERITS AND THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED . THEREFORE, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMIT THE CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT ASSESSEE SHALL BE GIVEN A FAIR OPPORTUNITY O F HEARING. ACCORDINGLY, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 26 /07/2021. SD/ - SD/ - (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 26 TH JULY, 2021 *GMV COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SRI M. BAL REDDY, C/O SRI AV RAGHURAM, P VINOD, ADVOCATES, 610, BABUKHAN ESTATE, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD 500 001 , TELANGANA. 2. ITO, WARD 16 (1), HYDERABAD 3. ACIT, RANGE 16, HYDERABAD 4. CIT(A) - 4, HYDERABAD 5. PR.CIT 4, HYDERABAD. 6. D.R. ITAT HYDERABAD 7. GUARD FILE