HARISH REDDY MARRI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2103/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 September 2026AY 2017-188 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present relevant details and records, subject to a cost.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals before the CIT(A) were dismissed ex-parte for non-prosecution. The Assessing Officer also passed an ex-parte order for one of the assessment years. The assessee claimed non-receipt of notices as the reason for non-appearance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals ex-parte without adjudicating on merits, and whether the assessee should be granted a fresh opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 48,Section 80C,Section 80D,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MANJUNATHA G.

Pronounced: 18.09.2026

आदेश / ORDER

PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT:

These two appeals by the Assessee are directed against the two separate Orders dated 25.09.2023 and 28.11.2023 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short "NFAC"], Delhi, for the assessment years 2017-2018 and 2021-2022, respectively.

2.

The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA.No.2103/Hyd./2026:

1.

“The order of the learned CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte for non- prosecution without disposing of the grounds on merits and without passing a speaking order in accordance with law. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that dismissal of appeal without adjudication on merits is bad in law and opposed to the principles of natural justice. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.21,86,600/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Act. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in invoking section 115BBE on the said addition. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the computation of long-term capital gains at Rs.1,80,98,400/-.

7.

The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessed total income of Rs.2,11,11,170/- as against the returned income of Rs.8,26,770/-. 8. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C. 9. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.”

3.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA.No.2104/Hyd./2026:

1.

The order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law and is liable to be quashed. 2. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tars (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal 'ex-parte for non-prosecution without properly appreciating the facts of the case and without adjudicating the grounds raised by the appellant on merits. 4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that once an appeal was filed, the appellate authority was bound to dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law and therefore the dismissal of the appeal without deciding the issues raised is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in treating cash deposits of Rs.31,23,700/- in the bank account of the appellant as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income tax Act, 1961, without properly considering the explanation and surrounding facts of the case. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A without establishing that the impugned cash deposits represented unexplained money belonging to the appellant and without bringing any cogent material on record. 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction of Rs.3,73,799/- claimed in respect of income from house property, being municipal taxes and interest on borrowed capital, without appreciating that the claim was otherwise allowable in law. 8. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction of Rs.2,08,537/- claimed under Chapter VI-A, including deduction under sections 80C and 80D, without properly appreciating the facts and evidence available on record. 9. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.38,92,565/-made by the Assessing Officer in respect of deductions claimed under section 48 of the Act towards indexed cost of acquisition, indexed cost of improvement and transfer expenses, without proper/verification and without affording reasonable opportunity to the appellant.. 10. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment of total income at Rs.94,88,801/- as against the returned income of Rs.18,90,200/- without properly considering the facts, explanations and legal position applicable to the case.

11.

The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessment order passed under section 144 read with section 144B was itself bad in law, unjustified and liable to be deleted or suitably modified on facts and in law. 12. The levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C is consequential, excessive and liable to be deleted or recomputed. 13. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds at or before the time of hearing.”

4.

At the outset, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the learned CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order whereby the appeals of the assessee were dismissed without deciding the issues on merits. Further, for the assessment year 2021-2022, the assessment order was also passed ex-parte. He has submitted that due to non-communication of the notice, the assessee could not participate in the proceedings before the authorities below however, the assessee undertakes to cooperate with the proceedings before the authorities below if a further opportunity is given to the assessee. Thus, he has pleaded that the matters may be remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

5.

On the other hand, the learned DR has objected to remand of the matters to the Assessing Officer and submitted that despite sufficient opportunities the assessee has not produced the relevant details and record either before the Assessing Officer or before the learned CIT(A). He has relied upon the Orders of the authorities below.

6.

We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee for non-prosecution when the assessee has not responded to the notices issued by the learned CIT(A). Thus, it is clear that the appeals of the assessee were not decided on merits and particularly, various grounds raised by the assessee. For the assessment year 2021-2022 the Assessing Officer has also passed an ex-parte order. Thus, for want of relevant record and details the additions were made by the Assessing Officer and appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed by the learned CIT(A) for non-prosecution. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we grant one more opportunity to the assessee to produce the relevant details and record before the Assessing Officer subject to cost of Rs.5000/- in each appeal [in total Rs.Ten Thousand only] to be paid to ITAT Tax Bar Association, Hyderabad, within a period of one month from the date of this order. Hence, the impugned orders of the learned CIT(A) are set aside, and the matters are remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

7.

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. A copy of this common order is placed in the respective case files.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18.09.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- MANJUNATHA G VIJAY PAL RAO ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Hyderabad, Dated 18th day of September, 2026 VBP Copy to: HARISH REDDY MARRI, E-BLOCK, FLAT NO-101, ADITYA EMPRESS TOWERS, 1 SHAIKPET NALA, GOLCONDA POST, HYDERABAD-500008, TELANGANA INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(1), IT TOWERS, GROUND 2 FLOOR, AC GUARDS, HYDERABAD-500004, TELANGANA 3 THE PR. CIT, HYDERABAD 4 THE D.R., ITAT, HYDERABAD A-BENCH, HYDERABAD. 5 GUARD FILE TRUE COPY

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / I.T.A.T., HYDERABAD Digitally signed VADREVU by VADREVU PRASADA RAO PRASADA Date: RAO 2026.09.18 14:17:41 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →