Vimala Reddy Adapa , Hyderabad Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(2), Hyderabad

Last updated: 28 June 2021

Save Share

Quick Summary

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Hyderabad has allowed the appeal of Vimala Reddy Adapa for the assessment year 2012-13. The tribunal noted that the previous order by the CIT(A) was passed ex-parte, potentially without proper examination of evidence and adequate notice to the assessee. The case has been restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

Court :
ITAT Hyderabad

Brief :
This assessee’s appeal for AY.2012-13 arises from the CIT(A)-4, Hyderabad’s order dated 08-11-2016 passed in case No.0225 / 12-13 / ITO, Wd.16(2) / CIT(A)-4 / Hyd / 16-17, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short,‘the Act’].Case called twice. None appeared at assessee’s behest.

Citation :
I.T.A. No. 1717/HYD/2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE)

BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

I.T.A. No. 1717/HYD/2019
Assessment Year: 2012-13

Vimala Reddy Adapa,
HYDERABAD
[PAN: ADHPA2536M]
(Appellant)

Income Tax Officer,
Ward-16(2),
HYDERABAD
(Respondent)

For Assessee : NONE
For Revenue : Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR

Date of Hearing : 29-04-2021
Date of Pronouncement : 18-06-2021

O R D E R

PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. :

This assessee’s appeal for AY.2012-13 arises from the CIT(A)-4, Hyderabad’s order dated 08-11-2016 passed in case No.0225 / 12-13 / ITO, Wd.16(2) / CIT(A)-4 / Hyd / 16-17, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short,‘the Act’].Case called twice. None appeared at assessee’s behest.

2. We notice at the outset that the CIT(A)’s lower appellate order under challenge inter alia affirming the Assessing Officer’s action, un-explained cash credits of Rs.61,42,000/- making long term capital gains of Rs.94,68,101/- allegedly denying transfer expenses and indexed cost of improvements, has been passed ex-parte.

3. Learned departmental representative invited our attention to para 3 pg.3 of the CIT(A)’s order that the assessee had been afforded adequate opportunity(ies) of hearing, wherein she chose not to appear.

4. We prima-facie notice that the assessee had been served only the CIT(A)’s hearing notice issued on 30-06-2016 since there is no indication qua service of any further notice. Coupled with this, the CIT(A) has also not examined the relevant factual evidence tendered at the assessee’s behest during the course of scrutiny in the light of Section 2(50)(c) of the Act requiring framing of points of adjudication followed by a detailed adjudication.

We therefore deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant grievance(s) back to the CIT(A) for his afresh adjudication as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered Accordingly.

5. This assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18th June, 2021

Sd/- Sd/-
(LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (S.S.GODARA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Hyderabad, Dated: 18-06-2021
Copy to :

1.Smt.Vimala Reddy Adapa, Plot No.H-27 & H-28, Flat No.301, Muppa Panchavati Township, Manikonda,Hyderabad.
2.The Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(2), Hyderabad.
3.CIT(Appeals)-4, Hyderabad.
4.Pr.CIT-4, Hyderabad.
5.D.R. ITAT, Hyderabad.
6.Guard File.

FAQ :

The appeal concerned an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) which affirmed the Assessing Officer's actions regarding unexplained cash credits and long-term capital gains, as well as denial of transfer expenses and indexed cost of improvements.

The appeal was allowed because the tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order might have been passed without a thorough examination of the facts and evidence, and there was a question regarding the adequacy of notice served to the assessee.

The tribunal has restored the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee up to three effective opportunities of hearing.

This appeal relates to the assessment year 2012-13.