PADMA AESHABOINA,NALGONDA vs. ITO, WARD-1, NALGONDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1262/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 August 2026AY 2020-215 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an effective opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte. The assessee contended that they were not given a proper opportunity of hearing and that their adjournment requests were refused.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MANJUNATHA G.

Pronounced: 05.08.2026

आदेश / ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT : This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 18.03.2026 of the Ld. CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short "NFAC"], Delhi, for the assessment year 2020-2021.

2.

The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“Ground 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of 1) the case, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law and is passed in gross violations of principles of natural justice. 2) Ground 2. Without prejudice to the above, the ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made by the AO of Rs.27,05,000 as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act. 3) Ground 3. The ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made by the AO of Rs.11,70,000 as unexplained income u/s.69A of the Act. 4) Ground 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.”

3.

The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the learned CIT(A) has passed the impugned order ex-parte without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. He has referred to the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and submitted that the learned CIT(A) has issued only two notices to the assessee and assessee has sought adjournment of hearing which was refused by the learned CIT(A) and appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Thus, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that assessee may be granted an opportunity to present her case before the learned CIT(A) for deciding the same on merits.

4.

On the other hand, the learned DR has relied upon the impugned order of the learned CIT(A).

5.

We have considered the rival submissions as well as gone through the impugned order of the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) has given the details of the notices issued to the assessee and then, taken up the appeal of the assessee to decide ex-parte in Para no.4.1 as under:

“4.1. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant was issued notice on 19.02.2026 and 02.03.2026 requiring submission of a response. However, in the response no reply submitted by the appellant and sought for the repeated adjournment without any cogent reason. Subsequently, in the interest of natural justice on 10.03.2026 again a notice issued with hearing date 17.03.2026 in which explicitly stated: "You are requested to furnish your detailed replies on the points (mentioned in the notice) within the specified time frame mentioned in the notice. Non-compliance may result in the case being decided on merits or dismissed accordingly." It was further highlighted that timely submission of the response would ensure a fair and just examination of the appellant's case. Despite this opportunity, the appellant once again failed to comply with the notice and sought long adjournment without any cogent reason.”

5.1. Thus, it is clear that the learned CIT(A) has issued two notices on 19.02.2026 and 02.03.2026 within a span of two weeks. The assessee sought adjournment of the hearing but the same was declined by the learned CIT(A) and passed the impugned order on 18.03.2026. From the facts as manifest from the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) it is clear that the assessee was not given an effective opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication of the appeal of the assessee on merits, after giving an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 05.08.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- MANJUNATHA G VIJAY PAL RAO ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Hyderabad, Dated 05th day of August, 2026 VBP Copy to: 1 PADMA AESHABOINA, 11-121/1, SHIVAJI NAGAR, NAKREKAL, NALGONDA-508211, TELANGANA 2 ITO, WARD-1, INCOME TAX OFFICE, NEAR RAIL UNDER BRIDGE, NALGONDA - 508001, TELANGANA 3 THE PR. CIT, HYDERABAD. 4 THE D.R., ITAT, HYDERABAD SMC-BENCH, HYDERABAD. 5 GUARD FILE TRUE COPY VADREVU Digitally signed by VADREVU PRASADA PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / Date: 2026.08.05 RAO I.T.A.T., HYDERABAD 14:19:45 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →