BHASKAR REDDY PESARU,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2, WARANGAL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex-parte without proper notice and that the issue of unexplained deposits required fresh consideration. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
What were the facts?
The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order affirming an addition of Rs. 23,56,377/- under Section 69A for unexplained deposits. The assessee's appeal arose from this order, which was passed without clear evidence of hearing notice service.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte without proper notice is valid, and whether the addition for unexplained deposits requires fresh consideration.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “SMC”, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA
This assessee’s appeal for AY.2017-18 arises from the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi’s order dated 30-07-2021 passed in case No.CIT(A), Hyderabad-3/ 10047/2020-21, involving proceedings u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
I notice at the outset that the CIT(A)’s lower appellate order in issue; affirming the assessing authority’s action making Section 69A un-explained interest addition of Rs.23,56,377/-; has been passed ex-parte. And that too, without even indicating as to whether the corresponding hearing notice(s) had been served upon the assessee or not.
Coupled with this, the instant issue of un-explained amount deposited in bank account requires afresh consideration at the learned CIT(A)’s end since neither any credit has been given to the assessee’s past savings and cash in hand nor the latter has been able to reconcile source of the impugned deposits with the earlier withdrawals. I therefore restore the instant issue back to the CIT(A) for his afresh adjudication on merits. The assessee or his authorised representative shall appear before the Ld.CIT(A) on or before 31-01-2022 with all the relevant details to be followed by three effective opportunities of hearing.
This assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18th November, 2021
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026