IRRI SURYA PRAKASH RAO,NIDADAVOLE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TANUKU
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issues properly, both on merits and regarding the validity of reopening. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee's assessment was originally completed and later reopened under Section 147 for violations of Section 40A(3). The Assessing Officer made additions for non-deduction of TDS and violation of Section 40A(3). The CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex-parte without a speaking order.
What were the issues?
Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid and whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the issues on merits in its ex-parte order.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 148,Section 40A(3),Section 194C,Section 194H
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH
O R D E R
Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singh, Accountant Member :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]-11, Hyderabad in Appeal No.213/2017-18/CIT(A)-11/Hyd dated 28.02.2019 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10.
Irri Surya Prakash Rao, Nidadavole
In this case, assessment was completed originally u/s 143(3) for the A.Y.2009-10 on 18.11.2011 determining the total income of Rs.3,57,610/- against the declared income of Rs.1,82,610/-. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened u/sec. 147 of the act for violation of provisions of section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘Act’] by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The reassessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 by an order dated 17.08.2015 on total income of Rs.14,36,430/-. In the reassessment order, the Assessing Officer (AO) made the additions relating to payments made to lorries for non- deduction of tax at source u/s.194C of the Act for an amount of Rs.3,08,150/-, payment of commission for non deduction of tax at source u/s 194H of the Act for an amount of Rs.4,01,065/- and the payments in violation of provisions of Sec.40A(3) of the act for an amount of Rs.3,69,600/- aggregating to Rs.10,78,815/-.
Against the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex-parte by an order dated 28.02.2019.
Against which the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has raised the issue with regard to validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 which was Irri Surya Prakash Rao, Nidadavole not adjudicated by the Ld.CIT(A) by speaking order. The assessment year under consideration 2009-10 and the notice was issued on 04.04.2015, that is beyond 4 years. Neither the CIT(A) nor the AO brought out the failure of the assessee to reopen the assessment. Similarly on merits also, the Ld.CIT(A) has not decided the issues by speaking order. Therefore, requested to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits. The Ld.AR assured proper compliance before the Ld.CIT(A).
On the other hand, the Ld.DR fairly conceded to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A).
We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) has decided the issues without analyzing the issues properly both on merits as well the issue of reopening of assessment. Though the Ld.CIT(A) id permitted to pass exparte order the same should be on merits and by speaking order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to dispose of the appeal on merits by speaking order.
Irri Surya Prakash Rao, Nidadavole
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on 5th June, 2020.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026