I. SESHAGIRI RAO, SEC'BAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 994/HYD/2016Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 July 2021AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the twin issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. The assessee was directed to provide all details and produce creditor parties within specified opportunities.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2009-10 was filed with a delay due to ill health. The core issues involved additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) for unexplained cash credits and a difference in salary.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO made additions for unexplained cash credits and salary differences without proper inquiry, and if the CIT(A) adequately adjudicated the grounds of appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES : BENCH “B” HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI S.S. GODARA & SHRI L.P. SAHU

Hearing: 17/06/2021Pronounced: 12/07/2021

For Assessee: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, C.A. For Revenue: Sri Rohit Mujumdar, D.R. Date of Hearing : 17/06/2021 Date of Pronouncement : 12/07/2021 O R D E R PER S.S. GODARA, J.M. This Assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 arises against the CIT(A) -1, Hyderabad’s order dated 29.04.2013 passed in case no. 0110/2013- 14/CIT(A)-1, Hyd/15-16 , involving proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ in short ‘the Act’].

Heard both the parties. Case file perused. AY 2009-10 Sri I. Sehsagiri Rao At the outset it is observed that the appeal is filed with a delay of 44 days for which assessee has filed affidavit stating due to his ill health the delay occurred. Being satisfied that this delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor wilful, we condone the same and proceed with the appeal.

2.

The assessee has pleaded the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal. “3. The hon’ble CIT(A) ought to have observed that the assessing officer treated the amount of Rs.1,54,52,500/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act without making any enquiries and therefore, the same is liable to be deleted. 4. The hon’ble CIT(A) ought to have observed that the assessing officer erred in making addition of Rs. 9,24,600/- towards difference in salary without any material on record and therefore the same is liable to be deleted.”

3.

Learned counsel’s sole substantive argument during the course of hearing is that the assessee could not effectively represent her case; both in the course of assessment as well as in the CIT(A)’s proceedings, which has culminated in the impugned twin additions of unexplained cash credits as well as that of difference in salary amount as per that return and Form 26 AS; respectively The Revenue’s vehement contention on the other hand is that both the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) have afforded very much reasonable opportunities to her to file and explain all the corresponding details.

4.

Faced with this situation and more so in light of the culminating fact that the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion has not taken into consideration the corresponding details, if any, filed by the assessee in light of sec.250(6) of the Act requiring framing of points of determination followed by a detailed adjudication, we deem it appropriate to restore these instant twin issues back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh and appropriate verification of facts. It AY 2009-10 Sri I. Sehsagiri Rao is made clear that the assessee or her learned authorised representative shall appear before the Assessing Officer and file all the detailed evidences, by 31st October, 2021 ; at her own risk and responsibility only to be followed by her burden to produce the creditor parties S/ Sri RJ Rao, NVL Nagaraju and D Kotaiah within three effective opportunities of hearing and failure to ensure necessary compliance to this effect shall be taken as default on her part only. Ordered accordingly.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Pronounced in Open Court on 12th July, 2021.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →