MANCHALA VENKATA RAYUDU,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 809/VIZ/2025Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 July 2026AY 2017-189 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal, remitting the issue back to the CIT(A) to consider the additional evidence and provide an effective opportunity to the assessee, imposing a cost.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to respond to notices from the AO regarding unexplained cash deposits and IMFL purchases, leading to a best judgment assessment. The CIT(A) refused to admit additional evidence, confirming the AO's additions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to admit additional evidence and whether the additions made by the AO were sustainable without considering the assessee's explanation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 69A,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

PER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.CIT(A)”], NFAC, Delhi vide

ITA 809/VIZ/2025 Manchala Venkata Rayudu

DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1082781566(1) dated 19.11.

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →