Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(1), Hyderabad V. Ramadevi Kalidindi, Hyderabad

ITA 835/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9361 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 04-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 13

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 835/HYD/2018 A.Y. 2013 - 14 RAMADEVI KALIDINDI, HYDERABAD. PAN: AJPPK 3062 J VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 14(1), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI K.C. DEVDAS REVENUE BY: SHRI ROHIT MUJUMDAR, DR DATE OF HEARING: 02/03/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 11 /03/2021 ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 6, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO. 0106/2016 - 17/A3/CIT(A) - 6, DATED 23/02/2018 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y.: 20 13 - 14. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THREE GROUNDS IN HER APPEAL AND THEY ARE EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: - 1. THAT THE HONBLE CIT (A) DID NOT GRANT REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY AND AGAINST NATURAL JUSTICE PASSED THE APPELLATE ORDER IN HASTE. 2. THE HONBLE CIT (A) HAS BY NOT GRANTING TIME AND THE APPELLANT BEING PREVENTED FROM APPEARING IN THE APPEARING IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS RESULTED THE WRONG EX - PARTE ORDER BEING PASSED, WHICH IS UNJUSTIFIED AND BAD IN LAW. 2 3. THE MERITS OF THE CASE RELATE TO A WRONG ASSESSM ENT MADE BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND AS HONBLE CIT(A) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE TRUE MERITS OF THE CASE PASSED THIS UNJUST ORDER, THE APPELLANT IS HENCE FILING AFRESH THE SAME GROUNDS AGAINST WHICH THE FIRST APPEAL WAS FILED AND THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE AP PEAL IS FILED IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FACTS AS THAT OF THE EARLIER GROUNDS THAT WERE OVERLOOKED BY THE CIT(A) DUE TO THE EX - PARTE ORDER. THE SAME GROUNDS AND THE FACTS THAT WERE RAISED AGAINST THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER, ARE AGAIN FILED. A. THE ORDER P ASSED BY THE LD. A.O. IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE AND IS UNJUSTIFIED. B. THE CAPITAL INCOME THAT WAS TAXED IS TO BE DELETED AS NO INCOME ACCRUED IN THE RELEVANT A.Y. 2013 - 14. C. THAT THE LD. A.O. IS NOT EMPOWERED TO TAKE A VIEW WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE PREVAILING POSITION AS ON DATE AND THAT IS CLEARLY IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. D. THE APPELLANT CREATES LEAVE TO AMEND / APPEND / ADD SUCH DETAILS AND GROUNDS IN FURTHERANCE OF THE PRESENT APPEAL PREFERRED. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. 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 THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD . 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 HER REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). THEREFORE THE LD. CIT (A) HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO PASS EX - PARTE ORDER BASED ON THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HENCE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. 3 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATE RIALS ON RECORD. ON EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR. THE LD. CIT (A) HAD POSTED THE CASE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON THE DATES OF HEARING. T HEREFORE, THE LD. CIT (A) WAS LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL EX - PARTE. IN THIS SITUATION, WE DO NOT FIND MUCH STRENGTH IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR. HOWEVER, ON PERUSING THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) WE FIND THAT THE LD. CITA) DID NOT PASS A SPEAKING ORDER ON MERITS. THEREFORE CONSIDERING THE PRAYER OF THE LD. AR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT (A) IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERITS BY PROVIDING ONE MORE OPP ORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. AT THE SAME BREATH, WE ALSO HEREBY CAUTION THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTLY 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 THE RECORD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. 4 PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 11 TH MARCH, 2021. SD/ - SD/ - (SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 11 TH MARCH, 2021 OKK COPY TO: - 1) SMT. RAMADEVI KALIDINDI, FLAT NO. 833, ROAD NO. 43, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD 500 033. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 14(1), HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT (A) - 6, HYDERABAD/ 4) THE PR. CIT - 6, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE