MALEPATI ADINARAYANA,KADAPA V. ITO., WARD-1, KADAPA

ITA 854/HYD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Malepati Adinarayana, the appellant, who did not file his Income Tax Return (ITR) for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) issued statutory notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were served but not responded to by the assessee. Consequently, the ITO completed the assessment ex-parte, determining the total income/loss at Rs.95,20,224. The assessee's subsequent appeal to the CIT (A) was also dismissed ex-parte due to non-appearance and non-submission of details. The Tribunal found that the CIT (A) had not provided sufficient opportunity for the assessee to be heard, leading to the decision to remand the case back to the CIT (A) for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 26923 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 02-09-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SAMEER
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 142(1); 143(2); 48

Judgement Text

" ITA No 854 of 2024 Malepati Adinarayana Page 1 of 4 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member and Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.854/Hyd/2024 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Malepati Adinarayana KADAPA PAN:ASSPM5798B Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward – 1 KADAPA (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: Shri Sameer, Advocate appeared for Advocate Shri M.A. Sunil Ahmed राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by:: Shri Karthik Manickam, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 28/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/10/2024 आदेश/ORDER Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17/05/2024 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2016-17. 2. At the outset, it is seen that there is a delay of 48 days in filing of this appeal by the assessee to which the assessee has filed an affidavit and condonation petition stating that since he is ITA No 854 of 2024 Malepati Adinarayana Page 2 of 4 digitally illiterate person, not aware of the order uploaded in the portal. After discussing with the learned DR, the delay of 48 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee is hereby condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has not filed ITR for the A.Y 2016-17. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued and served on the assessee. But the assessee neither appeared nor filed any details before the Assessing Officer. Thus, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex-parte and assessed the total income/loss determined at Rs.95,20,224/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A). Before the learned CIT (A), the assessee neither appeared nor filed any written submission to substantiate his case. Thus, the learned CIT (A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee ex-parte and upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. We have heard both the sides, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the learned CIT (A) only issued 2 dates of hearing on 2/5/2024 and 9/5/2024. We find that before the learned CIT (A), the assessee neither appeared nor filed any details. The learned Counsel for the assessee explained the ITA No 854 of 2024 Malepati Adinarayana Page 3 of 4 reasons and argued that notices issued by the learned CIT (A) were not served on the assessee. It is an admitted fact that before disposing of any appeal, a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant needs to be given. In the present appeal, the learned CIT (A) had given 2 notices in the same month without affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the issue needs to go back to the file of the learned CIT (A) for fresh consideration and to give proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus, we set aside the order of the learned CIT (A) and restore the issue back to the file of the learned CIT (A) for fresh consideration. The learned CIT (A) is directed to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the appeal afresh. Needless to say, the assessee shall appear before the learned CIT (A) and file all the details. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 28th October, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANJUNATHA, G.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 28th October, 2024 Vinodan/sps ITA No 854 of 2024 Malepati Adinarayana Page 4 of 4 Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Shri Malepati Adinarayana, D.No.1-75, T Sundupalli Village and Post, Kaspa Rayachoty T Kadapa 516130 A.P 2 Income Tax Officer Ward – 1 Kadapa 3 Pr. CIT - Kurnool 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order "