HANUMANTHA RAO KOMERELLI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-8(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 519/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 September 2026AY 2017-1811 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in disposing of the appeal without deciding the assessee's application filed under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, for admission of additional evidence. The CIT(A)'s order did not mention whether the application was accepted or rejected, and its observations regarding the lack of evidence contradicted the documents claimed to have been filed. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) with a direction to re-decide the appeal after considering the application under Rule 46A and disposing of it with a speaking order, either admitting or rejecting the additional evidence. The Tribunal also refrained from deciding the other grounds of appeal and the additional ground concerning Section 115BBE, directing the CIT(Appeals) to adjudicate them afresh. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Hanumantha Rao Komarelli, filed an appeal against the order of the Additional/Joint CIT(Appeals) dated 15.11.2025, which upheld the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 143(3) for assessment year 2017-18. The AO had added Rs. 17,65,670/- to the assessee's income under section 69A, treating it as unexplained cash used for tax payment. The assessee claimed the funds were from his wife (rental income and savings), daughter-in-law (garment shop closure proceeds), and his own savings. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition without considering additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 46A. The appeal before the ITAT was filed with a delay of 21 days, which the Tribunal condoned.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 17,65,670/- under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is sustainable when the assessee claims the cash deposits were explained and substantiated with documentary evidence from his wife and daughter-in-law. - Assessee's contention: The cash deposits were duly explained and sourced from his wife's rental income and savings, and his daughter-in-law's business closure proceeds, with supporting evidence. The authorities below failed to appreciate this properly. - Revenue's contention: The assessee's claim regarding the sources of funds is unsubstantiated and was rightly rejected by the lower authorities. 2. Whether the AO was justified in levying tax at the enhanced rate of 60% under Section 115BBE of the Act, considering the amended provisions are applicable from Assessment Year 2018-19 onwards. - Assessee's contention: The enhanced rate under Section 115BBE is not applicable for AY 2017-18. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 143(3),Section 142(1),Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, HON’BLE

PER RAVISH SOOD, JM:

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Additional/Joint CIT(Appeals), Panaji, dated 15.11.2025, which in turn arises from the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, ‘AO’) under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’), dated 27.11.2019 for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us.

ITA 519/HYD/2026 HANUMANTHA RAO KOMERELL

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 →