Vishnu Swaroop Agarwal , Hyderabad v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(3) , Hyderabad

ITA 26/Hyd/2020 | 2015-2016
Pronouncement Date: 03-05-2021 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 2622514 RSA 2020
Assessee PAN ACFPA8959D
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 26/Hyd/2020
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
Appellant Vishnu Swaroop Agarwal , Hyderabad
Respondent Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(3) , Hyderabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 03-05-2021
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted DB-B
Tribunal Order Date 03-05-2021
Last Hearing Date 29-04-2021
First Hearing Date 29-04-2021
Assessment Year 2015-2016
Appeal Filed On 07-01-2020
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.26/HYD/2020 A.Y. 2015 - 16 VISHNU SWAROOP AGARWAL HYDERABAD. PAN: ACFPA 8959 D VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 7(3) HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI K.A. SAI PRASAD REVENUE BY: SHRI ROHIT MUJUMDAR DR DATE OF HEARING: 29/04/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 03 /05/2021 ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 3 HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO. 10242/ITO W - 7(3) HYD/CIT(A) - 3/2018 - 19 DATED 16/10/2019 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 AND U/S. 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2015 - 16. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED EIGHT GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL AND THEY ARE EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: - 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT EITHER IN LAW OR ON FACTS AND IN BOTH. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE F ACT THAT THE INITIATING OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 IS BAD IN LAW. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE PETITION FOR ADJOURNMENT AND DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL AS NONE PRESENT. 2 4. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO ADJUDICATE THE GROUNDS SUPPORTED BY ALL THE FACTS MENTIONED IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FAT THAT THE A.O. HIMSELF OBSERVED THAT THE CONSIDERATION TO THE APPELLANT AS OWNER IS THE VALUE OF THE COST OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE OWNERS SHARE OF V ILLAS AS CLAIMED IN GROUND NO.8 FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 6. THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUMMARILY REJECTING VARIOUS ISSUES RAISED IN THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM WITHOUT ADJUDICATING ON THE MERITS. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE A DDITION OF RS. 79 26 560/ - MADE BY THE A.O. 8. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. AT THE OUTSET THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US STATING THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER WITHOUT PR OVIDING 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 VEHE MENTLY 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 ITS 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. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. ON EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE WE FIND MERIT 3 IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR. IT APPEARS THAT T HE 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. THEREFORE 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 CONSIDERING THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL AS WELL AS 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 OPPORTUNITY 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 OR DER 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. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 03 RD M AY 2021. SD/ - SD/ - (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD DATED: 03 RD MAY 2021. 4 OKK COPY TO: - 1) VISHNU SWAROOP AGARWAL C/O. KATRAPATI & ASSOCIATES 1 - 1 - 298/2/B3 1 ST FLOOR ASHOK NAGAR HYDERABAD. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 7(3) SIGNATURE TOWERS OPP. BOTANICAL GARDEN KONDAPUR HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT (A) - 3 HYDERABAD. 4) THE PR. CIT - 3 HYDERABAD. 5) THE DR ITAT HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE