Narayana Radharapu, Karimnagar V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karimnagar

ITA 829/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1707 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-11-2019
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NILANJAN DEY
• Assessee Lawyers: M V JOSHI
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B - SMC, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.829/HYD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014 - 15 NARAYANA RADHARAPU, KARIMNAGAR. PAN: AAYPR 0547 H VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, KARIMNAGAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI M.V. JOSHI REVENUE BY: SRI NILANJAN DEY, DR DATE OF HEARING: 20/11/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05 /12/2019 ORDER 1. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 12, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO.10106/2018 - 19, DATED 07/02 /2019 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2015 - 16. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN HIS APP EAL: - 1. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT (A) WITH ALLEGATIONS THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT RESPONDED TO THE HEARINGS, THE APPELLANT HERE BY FILES THIS APPEAL. 2. THE APPELLANT HUMBLY SUBMITS THAT NO NOTICE OF HEARING EXCEPT ONE DATED 20/07/2017 FROM CI T(A) - 2 AND NOT FROM CIT(A) - 12 WAS SERVED AS ALLEGED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND AGAINST SUCH NOTICE OF HEARING, THE AR OF THE APPELLANT HAD REQUESTED FOR AN ADJOURNMENT ADDRESSED TO CIT (A) - 2. NEITHER ANY NOTICE OR CHANGE OF JURISDICTION NOR ANY NOTICE OF HEARING WERE SERVED / RECEIVED TO EITHER BY POST TO 2 THE APPELLANT OR BY MAIL TO THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AS ALLEGED IN APPELLATE ORDER OF CIT (A) - 12. HOWEVER, NOTICES ISSUED AT THE E - FILING PORTAL WERE NOT IN CONTROL OF THE AR REPRESENTING THE AP PEALS AND THE APPELLANT IS NOT VERSED OR AWARE OF THE E - FILING OPERATIONS. 3. THE APPELLANT FILES HEREWITH AN AFFIDAVIT CONFERRING THE FACTS ON OATH AND PRAYS FOR CONSIDERING THE SAME. 4. THE APPELLANT FURTHER HUMBLY PRAYS FOR ALLOWING OR PERMITTING SUBMIS SION OF APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF ORIGINAL CONTENTIONS AND SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AND / OR EVIDENCES WHICH, HAD THE HEARING BEEN ALLOWED BEFORE THE CIT WOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. 5. THE APPELLANT HUMBLY PRAYS AS AN ALTERNATIVE THAT THE CASE AT BEST BE REMANDED, FOR APPROPRIATE DISPOSAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) ON THE GROUNDS OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. FURTHER, LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE LD CIT (A) HAD MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER THAT SEVERAL OPPORTUNITI ES WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, IN FACT, EXCEPT NOTICE DATED 20/07/2017, NO OTHER NOTICES WERE SERVED ON THE ASS ESSEEE . IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD CIT (A) IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO T HE ASSESSEE TO PURSUE THE APPEAL . LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND ARGUED THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER, ON THE GIVEN DATES OF HEARING, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO PASS EX - PARTE ORDER BASED ON THE 3 MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HENCE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) DOES N OT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. ON EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR. IT APPEARS F ROM THE RECORD THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAD POSTED THE CASE FOR HEARING ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS VIZ., 20/07/2017, 6/9/2018, 22/10/2018, 2 8/11/2018, 10/01/2018 AND FINALLY ON 24/01/2019 . HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON THE DA TES OF HEARING. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT (A) WAS LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL EX - PARTE. IN THIS SITUATION, I DO NOT FIND MUCH STRENGTH IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE PRAYER OF THE LD. AR, AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT (A) IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL AFRESH BY PROVIDING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. AT THE SAME BREATH, I ALSO HEREBY CAUTION THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTL Y CO - OPERATE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) IN THE PROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH THE LD. CIT (A) SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 4 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05 TH DECEMBER , 2019. SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 05 TH DECEMBER , 2019 OKK COPY TO: - 1) NARAYANA RADHARAPU, H.NO.2 - 10 - 267, JYOTHINAGAR, KARIMNAGAR TOWN & DISTRICT, TELANGANA. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, AAYAK, BHAVAN, KARIMNAGAR, TELANGANA. 3) THE CIT(A) - 12 , HYDERABAD 4) THE PR. CIT - 2 , HYDERABAD 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE