SANTHOSH DONTHULA,WARANGAL vs. ITO, WARD-1, WARANGAL

ITA 833/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 September 2026AY 2023-246 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) issued three notices, and the assessee sought adjournment for two of them. While the first adjournment request was granted, the second was denied, leading to an ex-parte order where the assessee's appeal was dismissed for non-filing of details and submissions. The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was also passed ex-parte, with the AO estimating income at 12% of sales against the assessee's claimed 1% commission income as an agricultural produce commission agent. Considering the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after considering the details to be filed by the assessee, with an appropriate opportunity of hearing to be provided. The issue of the addition of Rs.2,19,43,863 was not decided on merits but was remanded for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Santhosh Donthula, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2023-2024. The assessee's grounds of appeal challenged the CIT(A)'s order for being erroneous, the sustaining of an addition of Rs. 2,19,43,863 as business income by estimating profit at 12% of sales, and the failure of authorities to appreciate the assessee's business as an Adthi agent earning commission income around 1% fixed by the agricultural market committee. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte after denying an adjournment request, violating principles of natural justice. The revenue did not seriously object to a remand.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law, particularly concerning the denial of an adjournment request by the assessee? - Assessee's contention: The CIT(A) denied the assessee's request for adjournment, leading to an ex-parte order and a violation of natural justice. The assessee sought one more opportunity to present the case. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made by the AO of Rs.2,19,43,863 as business income by estimating the profit at 12 percent of sales of Rs.18,28,65,525? - Assessee's contention: The assessee is in the Adthi business, selling produce on behalf of farmers and earning a commission of around 1%, which is fixed by the agricultural market committee. The authorities below failed to appreciate this. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MANJUNATHA G.

Pronounced: 30.09.2026

PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT:

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 19.01.2026 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short "NFAC"], Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2023-2024. 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 ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. The ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →