SRINIVAS KALLURI,KARIMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2, KARIMNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2042/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 August 2026AY 2020-214 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and restored the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate and furnish necessary details and evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) against an assessment order. The assessee failed to comply with the notices issued by the CIT(A), leading to the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without affording a proper opportunity, and whether the matter should be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘SMC‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri Ravish SoodShri Madhusudan Sawdia

Hearing: 07/08/2026

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SMC‘ Bench, Hyderabad �ी रिवश सूद,�ाियक सद� एवं �ी मधुसूदन साविड़या लेखा सद� सम� | Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No. 2042/Hyd/2026 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Shri Srinivas Kalluri Vs. Income Tax Officer HYDERABAD Ward -2 PAN: BDEPK9413M Karimnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee by: Advocate A.V. Raghuram राज� व �ारा/Revenue by: Shri Laxmi Kanth, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 07/08/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/08/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by Shri Srinivas Kalluri (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 02.04.2026 for the A.Y. 2020-21. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Id. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law and is passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

2.

Without prejudice to the above, the Id. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made by the AO of Rs.6,93,308 as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act. 3. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the appellant is a salaried person and has availed loans/gold loans for making investment in securities and that the repayment of loans are evident from the bank statement of the appellant. (Tax Effect: Rs.5,40,780) 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) under sections 147 read with 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2020-21 dated 19.02.2025. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

4.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the Ld. CIT(A), without affording a proper and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee, dismissed the appeal for non- prosecution. It was submitted that although three notices were issued by the Ld. CIT(A), all the notices were issued within a short span of time between 03.02.2026 and 09.03.2026. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has a good case on merits and, on account of the circumstances explained before the Bench, could not effectively prosecute the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) by filing the necessary evidences in support of his

claim. He, therefore, prayed that one more opportunity may be granted by restoring the matter for fresh adjudication. 5. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) submitted that the assessee had not only failed to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), but had also failed to furnish the requisite details before the AO during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, according to the Ld. DR, the conduct of the assessee does not warrant grant of another opportunity. Alternatively, it was submitted that if the Bench is inclined to restore the matter, the same should be restored to the file of the AO, since the documents which the assessee now proposes to rely upon were never produced before the AO. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the assessee neither complied with the notices issued by the AO during the assessment proceedings nor effectively prosecuted the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the claim of the assessee has not been examined either by the AO or by the Ld. CIT(A) on the basis of the evidences which the assessee now seeks to produce. In these circumstances, if the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), the appellate authority would be required to examine the evidences for the first time without there being any factual verification by the AO. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met by restoring the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and restore the issue

to the file of the AO with a direction to re-adjudicate the matter afresh in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation and furnish all the necessary details and evidences as may be called for by the AO. It is made clear that failure on the part of the assessee to cooperate in the fresh proceedings shall entitle the AO to proceed in accordance with law.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21st August, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 21st August, 2026. Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Shri Srinivas Kalluri, H.No.11-6-111 Flat No.402 Mehar Homes, Pochamma Bagh Colony, Saroornagar, RR Distt. Hyderabad 500035 2 Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Income Tax Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Near Natraj Theatre, Karimnagar 505001 3 Pr. CIT, Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order KAMALA KUMAR Digitally signed by KAMALA KUMAR ORUGANTI ORUGANTI Date: 2026.08.21 11:27:09 +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 →