2021 (7) TMI 1415 - AT - Income Tax

Dismissal of AY 2010-11 appeal; Remand for AY 2006-07 and 2011-12; Lack of evidence leads to fresh adjudication.

Srinivasa Chakravarthi Raju Gokaraju Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16 (1), Hyderabad

The appeal for AY 2010-11 was dismissed due to relief already granted in Section 154 rectification proceedings. The next two appeals for AYs 2006-07 and ... Disallowing agricultural income claim u/s. 10(1) - HELD THAT:- Revenue sought to highlight the fact in CIT(A)’s lower appellate proceedings in para 4 that he had issued several notices to the assessee. We note that there is no indication at all in the said para 4 and 3; respectively that the CIT(A) hearing notices had been actually served on the assessee. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to restore the instant latter twin appeals back to the CIT(A) for his afresh appropriate adjudication as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing. It is made clear that the assessee or his learned authorised representative shall appear before the CIT(A) on or before 30-11-2021 with all the relevant evidence; at his own risk and responsibility only, to be followed by three effective opportunities of hearing. Issues:1. Dismissal of appeal for AY 2010-11 due to relief already granted in Section 154 rectification proceedings.2. Ex-parte lower appellate order disallowing agricultural income claim u/s. 10(1) for AYs 2006-07 and 2011-12.Analysis:1. The judgment involves three appeals for different assessment years against separate orders of the CIT(A)-4, Hyderabad. The first appeal for AY 2010-11 was dismissed as the necessary relief had already been granted in Section 154 rectification proceedings. The counsel representing the assessee decided not to press for this appeal, leading to its dismissal.2. The next two appeals, for AYs 2006-07 and 2011-12, challenged the lower appellate order disallowing the agricultural income claim under section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act. These appeals were noted to have been passed ex-parte. The Revenue highlighted that several notices were issued to the assessee during the lower appellate proceedings, but there was no indication that the hearing notices had been served on the assessee.3. In light of the absence of evidence of service of hearing notices, the Tribunal decided to remand the latter twin appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication within three effective opportunities of hearing. The assessee or their representative was directed to appear before the CIT(A) with all relevant evidence by a specified date, at their own risk. The failure in factual verification of the assessee's evidence would not be attributed to the CIT(A) in any manner.4. Consequently, the first appeal was dismissed as not pressed, while the latter twin appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, with the directive for a fresh adjudication by the CIT(A) within the specified timeframe. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 19th July 2021.