PUNNA REDDY KASIREDDY,GUNTUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NARSARAOPET

ITA 385/VIZ/2026Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 August 2026AY 2017-188 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had conducted proper verification or considered the evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition on account of cash deposits in the assessee's bank account due to non-response to notices. The CIT(A) restricted the addition to 5% of deposits, estimating commission income. The assessee claimed only 1% commission on chilly trade.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in estimating commission income without proper evidence and without confronting the assessee's claim to the AO, and whether the additions were time-barred.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 69C,Section 148A,Section 149,Section 151,Section 251(1a)

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: 19.08.2026Pronounced: 31.08.2026

PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT :

These cross appeals by the Revenue and Assessee are directed against the Order dated 05.02.2026 of the 2 ITA.Nos.307 & 385/Viz./2026 learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short "NFAC"], Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. The Revenue has raised the respective grounds of appeal as under:

1.

“The order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC, Delhi is erroneous both

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 →