PUCHAKAYAKA YALAMANDESWARA RAO,KURNOOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NANDYAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1643/HYD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 October 2019AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and despite the assessee's lack of cooperation, decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to cooperate promptly in future proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee is aggrieved by the CIT(A)'s order confirming an addition of Rs. 6 lakhs as unexplained cash credit. The assessee sought an adjournment, but the Tribunal noted previous non-cooperation.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 6 lakhs as unexplained cash credit was justified. The primary issue revolved around the assessee's non-cooperation with revenue authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

For Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu, DR
Hearing: 30/09/2019Pronounced: 01/10/2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B-SMC”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1643/Hyd/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sri Puchakayala Vs. Income Tax Officer, Yalamandeswara Rao, Ward-1, H. No. 1-91, Ruthu Nagar, Nandyal. Nandyal (M), Kurnool Dist. PAN: AHPPR 1388 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri A.V. Raghuram for Samuel Nagadesi, AR Revenue by: Smt. Anjala Sahu, DR Date of hearing: 30/09/2019 Date of pronouncement: 01/10/2019 ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Kurnool in appeal No. 218/CIT(A)/KNL/2012-13, dated 14/03/2018 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2010-11.

2.

The assessee has raised three grounds in his appeal however the crux of the issue is that the assessee is aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A) who had confirmed the addition made by the Ld. AO for Rs. 6 lakhs as unexplained cash credit.

3.

At the time of hearing Mr. A.V. Raghuram appeared on behalf of the assessee’s representative Mr. Samuel Nagadesi seeking time. However, on perusing the order sheet, it was observed that several opportunities were already provided to the assessee of being heard. Further, on perusing the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and the Ld. AO, it is apparent that the assessee is not cooperating before the Revenue in their proceedings. Since the assessee has requested for one more opportunity of being heard, though I do not find much strength in his prayer, in the interest of justice, I hereby remit the matter back to the file of the Ld AO for denovo consideration. At the same breath, I also hereby direct the assessee and his Representatives to promptly cooperate before the Ld. Revenue Authorities in their proceedings failing which the Ld. Revenue Authorities shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with merit and law based on the materials on record.

4.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Pronounced in the open Court on 01st October, 2019.

Sd/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated:01st October, 2019 OKK

Copy to:- 1) P. Yalamandeswara Rao C/o.Samuel Nagadesi, Chartered Accountant, 408, Sri Ramakrishna Towers, Besides Image Hospitals, Ameerpet, Hyderabad-500073. 2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nandyal, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh. 3) The CIT(A), Kurnool. 4) The Pr. CIT, Kurnool 5) The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 6) Guard File

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →