B.Balreddy, Hyd, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-8(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 82/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6308 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K J RAO
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 82/HYD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 B. BAL REDDY, HYDERABAD. PAN AGNPB 6431 F VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 8(2), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.C. DEVDAS REVENUE BY : SHRI K.J. RAO DATE OF HEARING 14-07-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20-07-2016 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) -2, HYDER ABAD FOR AY 2009-10. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2 009-10 ON 21/12/2009 ADMITTING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,62,370 /-. THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) ON 14/12/2011 B Y MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: I) UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE ACT - RS. 17,70,000/- II) DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80GGC - RS. 10,000/- 2 ITA NO. 82/H/16 B. BAL REDDY 3. WHEN THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY PASS ING AN EX-PARTE ORDER BY HOLDING AS UNDER: IN SPITE OF SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES GRANTED NEIT HER THE ASSESSEE OR ITS AR ATTENDED ON THE HEARING DATES AND THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT EVEN FURNISHED ANY DETAILS OR MATERIAL WITH REG ARD TO THE ISSUES RAISED IN APPEAL. IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF CALLOUS AND INDIFFERENT ATTIT UDE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT PAYING DUE ATTENTION AND CARE TO A PPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. HENCE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE SAID APPEAL. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE CIT(A) RELIED ON THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPRE ME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARJEE AND ANOTHER (118 ITR 461). FINALLY CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT INSPITE OF SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ITS AR FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE REBUTTING THE CONCLUSIONS DR AWN BY THE AO. THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING THE A DDITIONS OF RS. 17,70,000/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND RS. 10,000/- TOWARDS DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80GGC RESPEC TIVELY IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. 4. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSE SSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING FIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. TH E MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS THAT TH E CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE T O EXPLAIN THE MATTERS IN DETAIL BEFORE DISMISSING THE APPEAL EX-P ARTE. 5. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING A SMALL TRADER DEALING IN BUSINESS OF SUPPLY OF BUILDING MATERIALS SUCH AS SAND, BRICKS ETC. AS ASSESSEE BEING REGULAR INCOME TAX ASSESSEE AND M OST OF THE 3 ITA NO. 82/H/16 B. BAL REDDY TRANSACTIONS ARE DONE THROUGH CASH ONLY. THE DEPOSI TS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS ARE RELATED TO THE BUSINESS ONLY. THE ASSESSEE BEING A SMALL TRADER, THE TRANSACTIONS ARE WITHIN THE LIMIT S OF SECTION 44AF, ASSESSEE HAD NOT MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. LD. A R PLEADED THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO ASSESSEE FO R THE SAKE OF JUSTICE. 6. CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES A ND PERUSED THE MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE ORDERS OF R EVENUE AUTHORITIES. THE CIT(A) PASSED AN EX-PARTE ORDER DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT IN SPITE OF SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES GRANTED TO ASSESSEE, THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE FROM A SSESSEE TO ATTEND THE DATES OF HEARING FIXED. WHEREAS THE ASSE SSEES CONTENTION IS THAT THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN ONE MORE OPP ORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE TO PRESENT AND ADVANCE ARGUMENTS ABOUT HIS CASE BEFORE HIM. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT TO MEET THE ENDS OF J USTICE, WE REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTI ON TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CAS E BEFORE HIM AND DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERITS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH L AW AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE IN THE MATTER. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH JULY, 2016 SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAHM AN) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 20 TH JULY, 2016 KV 4 ITA NO. 82/H/16 B. BAL REDDY COPY TO:- 1) B. BAL REDDY, C/O B. NARSING RAO & CO., CAS., P LOT NO. 554, ROAD NO. 92, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD 500 096 . HYDERABAD 500 004. 2) ITO, WARD 8(2), HYDERABAD 3) CIT(A) - 2, HYDERABAD 4) PR. CIT - 2, HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD.