Ch.Narasimha Rao, Hyderabad vs Assessee
- CitationITA No. 110/Hyd/2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a first appellate authority has rejected an appeal as time-barred and proceeded to decide it on merits without affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the proper course is to set aside the order and remit the matter for fresh adjudication, with the appellate authority first considering the assessee's explanation for the delay and, if satisfied, condoning the delay and deciding the appeal on merits after hearing the assessee.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Ch. Narasimha Rao, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income- tax, Circle - 13(1), PAN - AALPC4683L Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue by : Shri Rajat Mitra
Date of hearing 19-03-2015 Date of pronouncement 01-04-2015
O RDE R
PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 13/12/2012 passed by ld. CIT(A)-II, Hyderabad for A.Y. 2006-07.
2. Briefly the facts are, assessee an individual derives income from pension as well as share income from M/s Rama Talkies. For the AY under consideration, assessee filed his return of income on 31/07/06 declaring total income of Rs. 61,690. During the assessment proceeding, AO noticed that assessee along with three other persons has sold a property for a consideration of Rs. 1 crore, out of which assessee's share was Rs. 46,31,500. On his share of assessee, assessee has shown net capital gain at Rs. 10,87,672. AO after going through the sale deed found that assessee has signed the sale deed as General Power of Attorney holder of his two brothers. He further noticed that as per the recital of the sale deed, assessee has admitted of having contributed his own funds for the purchase of land 2 ITA No. 110/Hyd/2013 Ch. Narasimha Rao
on behalf of his brothers, who are staying in USA. Thus, AO when called upon assessee to explain, as stated by him, assessee in his letter dated 17/12/08 submitted that though the plot was purchased by his brothers, but, since he is unable to produce any confirmations from his brothers, who were residing in USA, capital gain falling into the share of his two brothers can be assessed at his hand. On the basis of the aforesaid submission of assessee, AO completed the assessment by adding the amount of Rs. 34,82,308 being long term capital gain falling into the share of assessee's two brothers, namely, Ch. Ramakrishna Rao and Ch. Venkateswara Rao. Being aggrieved of the addition made by AO, assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A),
3. Ld. CIT(A) on perusing the Memorandum of Appeal filed by assessee noticed that there is a delay in filing of the appeal. After going through the reasons shown for condonation of delay, ld. CIT(A), however, was not satisfied with the same. Accordingly, she held that delay cannot be condoned. Having held so, ld. CIT(A) also proceeded to decide the appeal on merit by upholding the addition made by AO. Being aggrieved, assessee is before us.
4. We have heard the arguments of the parties and perused the materials on record. The limited grievance of assessee is ld. CIT(A) should not have decided the appeal exparte without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. Ld. AR submitted before us, an opportunity may be granted to assessee to explain his case before ld. CIT(A). Ld. DR, on the other hand, has no serious objection, if one more opportunity is given to assessee to explain/represent his case before ld. CIT(A).
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the nature of dispute, we are inclined to afford one more opportunity to assessee to represent his case before ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set 3 ITA No. 110/Hyd/2013 Ch. Narasimha Rao
aside the impugned order of ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to him for deciding afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. Ld. CIT(A) must consider assessee's explanation with regard to delay in filing of appeal and if she is satisfied with the reasons shown by assessee, she may proceed to decide appeal on merit after condoning the delay. We also make it clear, assessee must cooperate in disposal of appeal by appearing on the date of hearing fixed by ld. CIT(A).
6. In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open court on 1 st April, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Hyderabad, Dated: 1 st April, 2015 kv Copy to:-
1) Ch. Narasimha Rao, C/o P. Murali & Co., CAs, 6-3-655/2/3, 1 st Floor, Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 500 082.
2) DCIT, Circle - 13(1), Hyderabad
3) CIT(A)-II, Hyderabad
4) CIT-I, Hyderabad
5) The Departmental Representative, I.T.A.T., Hyderabad.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free