SATYANARAYANA VOORA,THIMMAPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SURYAPET

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad �ी �वजय पाल राव, उपा� य� एवं �ी मधुसूदन साव�डया, लेखा सद� य के सम� । Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No. 848/Hyd/2025 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year:2016-17) Shri Satyanarayana Voora Vs. Income Tax Officer Thimmapuram, Suryapet Ward – 1 PAN:AKZPV3617M Suryapet (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee by: CA Narsihma Rachakonda राज� व �ारा/Revenue by:: Shri B. Sashi Kanth, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 05/05/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13/05/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by Shri Satyanarayana Voora (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 18.03.2025 for the A.Y.2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of ₹58,06,000/- under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without properly appreciating the documentary evidence and explanations submitted by the appellant regarding the nature and source of the cash deposits. 2. That the learned authorities failed to consider that the said cash deposits were received and subsequently paid to suppliers of PACS Thimmapur like TS MARKFED and Sri Venkateshwara Agencies, etc., in the ordinary course of its business, and that the transactions were routed through the appellant's personal account only due to operational constraints in PACS's bank account. 3. That the assessment was completed in violation of principles of natural justice, as 4. the submissions and supporting documents, including supplier confirmations, PACS resolutions, and bank statements, were not properly considered either by the Assessing Officer or by the CIT(A). 4. That the learned CIT(A) also erred in upholding the application of section 115BBE to the said addition, despite clear evidence that the funds did not constitute the appellant's personal unexplained income and were used solely for PACS business transactions. 5. That the appellant reserves the right to add, amend, or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who had not filed return of income for Assessment Year 2016-17. On the basis of available information, the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) found that there were huge cash deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 29.03.2023 was issued by the Ld. AO to the assessee. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed return of income on 22.09.2023 declaring total income of Rs.2,68,280/- after claiming deduction of Rs.1,50,000/- under section 80C of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO observed that there was total cash

deposit of Rs.47,96,000/- and further credits of Rs.10,10,000/- in the bank accounts of the assessee. Accordingly, the Ld. AO called for explanation from the assessee regarding the total credits aggregating to Rs.58,06,000/- in the bank accounts. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. AO was not convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee and accordingly treated the entire credits of Rs.58,06,000/- as unexplained investment and made addition in the hands of the assessee under section 69 of the Act. The Ld. AO also disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80C of the Act amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- in the absence of supporting documentary evidence. Accordingly, the assessment was completed by the Ld. AO under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide order dated 04.01.2024 assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.62,24,284/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the assessee could not comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the only issue involved in the present appeal of the assessee is with regard to the addition of Rs.58,06,000/- made by the Ld. AO under section 69 of the Act. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee was working as Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society, Thimmapur

(“PACS”). The Ld. AR also submitted that PACS purchases fertilizers and other agricultural products and sells the same in cash to its members. Due to certain operational difficulties, the sale proceeds of PACS were deposited into the bank accounts of the assessee and payments were made from the said accounts to the suppliers of PACS. The Ld. AR further submitted that all the credits appearing in the bank accounts of the assessee actually belonged to PACS, which is substantiated by corresponding payments made from the said bank accounts to the suppliers of PACS. The Ld. AR submitted that though certain documents were filed before the Ld. AO, due to lack of some supporting evidence, the Ld. AO proceeded to add the entire credits in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has now filed certain additional evidence along with an application under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed before the Bench to set aside the issue to the file of the Ld. AO for proper appreciation of the additional evidence and fresh adjudication of the issue. 6. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) submitted that the assessee failed to furnish all necessary evidence before the Ld. AO and also failed to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, according to the Ld. DR, adequate opportunity had already been provided to the assessee by both the lower authorities. Accordingly, the Ld. DR argued that no further opportunity should be provided to the assessee. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have also gone through

the assessment order, order of the Ld. CIT(A), and the additional evidence filed by the assessee along with application under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. On perusal of the same, we find that the assessee has filed certain additional evidence before this Tribunal for the first time in support of his contention that the deposits made in the bank accounts belonged to PACS and corresponding payments were made to the suppliers of PACS. Since these additional evidences were not filed before the lower authorities, in our considered opinion, the same require proper verification at the level of the Ld. AO. We further find that the issue involved in the present appeal is factual in nature requiring verification of bank transactions and correlation of deposits and payments with the activities of PACS. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the issue relating to addition of Rs.58,06,000/- under section 69 of the Act is restored to the file of the Ld. AO with direction to re-adjudicate the issue after proper verification of the additional evidence and other supporting documents filed by the assessee during remand proceedings. The assessee shall be at liberty to file all necessary evidence in support of their claim before the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed not to seek unnecessary adjournments and to cooperate in early disposal of the proceedings.