SRINIVAS RAO THUMATI,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, WARANGAL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) due to the assessee not receiving notices for hearings. The tribunal granted the assessee an opportunity for a fresh hearing before the CIT(A) to present his case and evidence.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a commission agent, had cash deposits in his bank account and claimed deductions under Section 80C, which the Assessing Officer treated as un-explained cash credit and disallowed the excess deduction. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-appearance and non-furnishing of evidence.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without ensuring proper service of notices and an opportunity for the assessee to be heard and present evidence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “SMC”, HYDERABAD
Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI
This appeal filed by the assessee for the AY.2014-15, is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–12, Hyderabad, dated 07-02-2019.
Brief facts of the case are that, assessee, an individual, is a commission agent on agricultural products. He filed his return of income for the AY.2014-15 on 19-08-2015, admitting total income of Rs.2,17,470/-.
During the course of assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act [Act], the assessee was required to furnish the information necessary for completion of assessment of his income. Assessee was also asked to produce statements of bank accounts maintained by the assessee
:- 2 -: ITA No. 755/Hyd/2019
during the F.Y.2013-14. The assessee submitted details and on perusal of the same, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that there were huge cash deposits in his Account No.1514204415 maintained with A.P. Grameena Vikas Bank. Assessee was therefore asked to explain the sources for the cash deposits and FDRs. Assessee could not furnish the relevant material and therefore, AO treated the cash deposits into bank account amounting to Rs.10,87,500/- as un-explained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act and brought it to tax. Further, the AO also noted that the assessee has not offered the interest income to an extent of Rs.5,7,56/- to tax and he accordingly brought it to tax. The AO also noticed that assessee has claimed Rs.38,512/- towards deduction u/s.80C of the Act but could produce the proof to an extent of Rs.4,476/- only. The balance claim of Rs.34,036/- was accordingly brought to tax.
3.1. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who confirmed the order of AO on the ground that assessee has not appeared before her [CIT(A)] and also that no evidence has been filed before her in support of the assessee’s claims.
3.2. Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal before the ITAT.
At the time of hearing, Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that initially, the appeal was filed with CIT(A)-2, Hyderabad and subsequently it was transferred to the CIT(A)- 12, Hyderabad, vide Notification dt.03-01-2019. He submitted
:- 3 -: ITA No. 755/Hyd/2019
that the CIT(A)-12 has recorded that the notices dt.15-01-2019 and 25-01-2019 were issued and served upon the assessee. She submitted that the assessee has not received the notices and therefore he prayed that the order of CIT(A) may be set aside and assessee be given an opportunity to explain his case.
Ld.DR was also heard.
Taking note of the fact that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for non-appearance of the assessee or his Counsel and for non-furnishing of the relevant material. We find that only two dates of hearing were given by the present CIT(A). Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of CIT(A) for fresh hearing, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall also co-operate with the CIT(A) by furnishing the relevant material for speedy disposal of the appeal.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30th September, 2019
Sd/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 30-09-2019 TNMM
:- 4 -: ITA No. 755/Hyd/2019
Copy to :
Shri Srinivas Rao Thumati, H.No.1-36, Village Konkapaka Mandal Srinagar, Parvathagiri, Warangal. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Warangal.
CIT(Appeals)-12, Hyderabad.
Pr.CIT-3, Hyderabad.
D.R. ITAT, Hyderabad.
Guard File.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetanj Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Namita Behera vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026