Ramesh Tuthuru , Medak V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sangareddy

ITA 781/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5329 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K J DIVYA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 80C; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A , HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 781 /HYD/ 2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 14 - 15 RAMESH TUTHURU, MEDAK. PAN: ANPPT 3806 R VS. ITO, WARD - 1, SANGAREDDY. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI K.C. DEVDAS REVENUE BY: SMT. K.J. DIVYA, DR DATE OF HEARING: 18 .09.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 03.10 .2018 ORDER PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M.: THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - 8, HYDERABAD DATED 28.02.2018. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1) THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AS WELL AS FACTS OF TH E CASE. 2) THE HONBLE CIT(A) DISPOSED THE APPEAL WITHOUT ALLOWING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE THE ORDER IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. 3) THE HONBLE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE LAND SOD BY THE APPELLANT WAS OF AGRICULTURE IN NATURE AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO GAIN LIABLE FOR TAX UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN. 4) THE HONBLE CIT(A), IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OUGHT TO HAVE OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET LIABLE FOR TAX UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN AND THEREFORE OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5) THE HONBLE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE DEPOSITS APPEARING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT DO NOT REPRESENT INCOME OF THE 2 ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION OF RS. 35 L AKHS WAS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 6) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE HONBLE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S 80C OF THE ACT. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,12,470/ - . DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TRANSFERRED A PIECE OF LAND FOR A SUM OF RS. 40 LAKHS BUT DID NOT OFFER CAPITAL GAINS ON THE SAME. BY O BSERVING THAT AS PER THE AGREEMENT OF SALE - CUM - GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY THE ASSESSEE DELIVERED THE VACANT POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY TO THE VENDEE , A.O. HELD THAT IT IS A TRANSF ER WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(47) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND THEREFORE HE BROUGHT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS TO TAX TREATING THE SUM OF RS. 40 LAKHS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS LTCG AND DID NOT ALLOW ANY COST OF ACQUISITION. HE ALSO MADE CERTAI N OTHER DISALLOWANCES AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL ADDITIONS. 3. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHICH WAS DISMISSED AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR AND FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT(A). 4. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECEIVED THE NOTICES OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL SINCE THERE WAS CHANGE OF ADDRESS AND THEREFORE THE APPEAL WAS DISPOSED OF EX - PARTE. HE PRAYED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMANDED TO THE CIT(A) FOR RE - CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUE ON MERITS. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE WAS ALSO HEARD. 5. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A) AT PARA 4 OF HIS ORDER THAT THE NOTICES OF HEARING SENT TO THE ASSESSEE WERE RETURNED WITH THE REMARKS UNCLAIMED, WE ARE OF THE OPINI ON THAT THE APPEAL WAS DECIDED EX - PARTE . W E ARE INCLINED TO SET - ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND REM AND THE ISSUE TO HIS FILE FOR A DECISION ON MERITS. 3 SINCE IT IS ALSO THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO PURSUE THE APPEAL FILED BY HIM BUT FAILED TO INTIMATE TH E CHANGE OF ADDRESS TO THE CIT(A) AFTER FILING OF THE APPEAL, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO IMPOSE A NOMINAL COST OF RS. 1,000/ - ON THE ASSESSEE TO BE PAID TO THE PRIME MINISTERS RELIEF FUND ON OR BEFORE 15 TH OCTOBER, 2018. T HEREAFTER , CIT(A) SHALL DISPO SE OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03 RD OCTOBER , 2018. SD/ - SD/ - (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 03 RD OCTOBER , 2018 OKK COPY TO: - 1) B. NARSING RAO & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, PLOT NO. 554, ROAD NO.92, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDEABAD - 500096. 2) ITO, WARD - 1, SANGAREDDY. 3) THE CIT(A) - 8 , HYDERABAD 4) THE PR. CIT - 8 , HYDERABAD 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE