SAIMANI RUBBER INDUSTRIES,KADAPA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KADAPA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1169/HYD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 May 2026AY 2020-214 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) is directed to consider the admissibility of the additional evidence under Rule 46A and decide the appeal afresh after providing a proper opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) for non-submission of merits and repeated adjournments. The assessee then filed additional evidence before the ITAT, which was not considered by the lower appellate authority.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits and additional evidence. Whether the additional evidence filed before the ITAT should be admitted and considered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Shri Ravish SoodShri Madhusudan Sawdia

Hearing: 28/04/2026

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ 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.1169/Hyd/2024 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Saimani Rubber Industries Vs. Income Tax Officer KADAPA Ward – 1 PAN:ABSFS8478B Kadapa (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee by: Advocate S. Rama Rao राज� व �ारा/Revenue by: Shri G.V. Pavan Kumar, Sr.AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 28/04/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06/05/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by Saimani Rubber Industries (“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 30.08.20924 for the A.Y. 2020-21. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1) The order of the learned CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law; 2) The learned CIT (A) erred in deciding the appeal ex- parte without providing proper opportunity to the appellant;

3) The learned CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the facts available on record; 4) The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in determining the capital gain considering the sale consideration at Rs.3,12,91,524/- as against the actual sale value of Rs.3,06,36,654/-. 5) The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the claim for improvements and cost of acquisition; 6) The learned CIT (A) ought to have seen that the expenditure on sale of the property of Rs.3,12,767/- is an allowable deduction; 7) The learned CIT (A) erred in not considering the short- term capital of Rs,1,25,95,138/- representing the loss on sale of depreciable assets; 8) Any other ground/grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing;” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm, filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2020- 21 on 15.02.2021 declaring total income of Rs.36,02,060/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and accordingly, notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 29.06.2021 was issued by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”). Thereafter, the Ld. AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide order dated 30.08.2022, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,57,17,897/-.

4.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). It is observed from the appellate order that the assessee sought adjournments on various dates fixed for hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) and did not file any submission on merits. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal and dismissed the same.

5.

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 assessee has filed additional evidence before this Tribunal along with a petition for admission of the same. The Ld. AR also made submissions on the merits of the additions made by the Ld. AO and prayed that the appeal of the assessee may be allowed. 6. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) relied upon the orders of the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is observed from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee kept on seeking adjournments and did not file any submission on merits before the Ld. CIT(A). We further note that the assessee has now filed additional evidence before this Tribunal along with a petition seeking its admission. In our considered view, the admissibility of such additional evidence is required to be examined in accordance with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”) by the Ld. CIT(A), being the first appellate authority. In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to consider the admissibility of the additional evidence in accordance with Rule 46A of the Rules and thereafter decide the issues afresh in accordance with law. The Ld. CIT(A) shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the appellate proceedings and shall not seek

unnecessary adjournments. The assessee shall be at liberty to file such additional evidence as may be permissible under Rule 46A of the Rules. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 6th May, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 6th May, 2026. Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 SAIMANI RUBBER INDUSTRIES Plot No 51 INDUSTRIAL AREA KADAPA-516004 ,Andhra Pradesh 2 Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Kadapa 516001 3 Pr. CIT - KURNOOL 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order

TIRUPATI Digitally signed by TIRUPATI YAMINI NAGA YAMINI NAGA MALLESWARI Date: 2026.05.07 14:32:05 MALLESWARI +05'30'

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →