INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, KAKINADA vs. SRI LAKSHMI SAI CONSTRUCTIONS, KAKINADA

ITA 803/VIZ/2025Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 August 2026AY 2017-1810 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without affording the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine and rebut the additional evidence submitted by the assessee. The matter was set aside and remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition on account of unexplained cash deposits. The assessee provided additional evidence, including sale deeds and ITRs of partners, before the CIT(A) to explain the source of these deposits. The CIT(A) deleted the addition based on this evidence without confronting it to the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) correctly deleted an addition based on additional evidence without allowing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine it, in violation of Rule 46A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM DB BENCH VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MANJUNATHA G.

Hearing: 18.08.2026Pronounced: 21.08.2026

PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT :

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the Order dated 09.10.2025 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:

2 ITA.No.803/Viz./2025 1. “The Order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi is erroneous in law and to the facts of the case.

2.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the assessment order.

3.

The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in Form 26AS TRACES portal, the transaction dates are not mentioned. Further, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in treating that there is no probabil

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 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →