DUVVURI VENKATA PAPAYYA SASTRY HUF,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

ITA 760/VIZ/2025Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 September 2026AY 2020-217 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition of unexplained fixed deposits requires examination with supporting evidence. It granted the assessee one more opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file its return of income on time and did not provide details regarding fixed deposits of Rs. 55,15,596/-. The Assessing Officer treated these deposits as unexplained income, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present evidence for unexplained fixed deposits, and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 143(2),Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH,

PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M :

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”], Delhi, dated 26.09.2025, pertaining to the assessment year 2020-21. 2. The brief facts of the cas

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →