R ANANTHA REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(2), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 77/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 December 2020AY 2015-162 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) rejected the assessee's claim without calling for a report from the Assessing Officer. Therefore, to ensure justice, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration after providing a hearing opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an order of the CIT(A) which upheld an addition of unexplained investment made by the Assessing Officer under Section 144. The assessee had provided explanations to the CIT(A), but these were rejected without further inquiry.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the assessee's explanation without proper inquiry or calling for a report from the AO. The issue revolves around the proper procedure for dealing with assessee submissions at the appellate stage.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘B’ BENCH : Hyderabad

Before: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Hearing: 14/12/2020Pronounced: 17/12/2020

Date of Hearing : 14/12/2020 Date of Pronouncement : 17/12/2020 O R D E R Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This is assessee’s appeal filed against the order of CIT(A)-7, Hyderabad dated 12.11.2018 relating to A.Y. 2015-16.

This appeal was taken up for hearing through Video Conference on 14.12.2020 and Ld.DR was heard. None appeared for assessee.

2.

Upon hearing the Ld.D.R. and on going through the record, we find that the assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Act making an addition of unexplained investment, against which assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) explaining the sources, but the CIT(A) did not accept the contentions ./2019, AY 2015-16 Sri R. Anantha Reddy, Hyd. of assessee stating that mere claim without production of evidence is not acceptable. We find that the CIT(A) has rejected the assessee’s claim in limini without calling for any report from the Assessing Officer on the submissions of the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit and proper to remand the issue to the file of the A.O. with a direction to re-consider the issue de-novo in accordance with law, after affording a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

3.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in Open Court on 17/12/2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →