RAVINDER NANNEBOINA,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, WARANGAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 940/HYD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 March 2019AY 2014-153 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the grounds of appeal before it stemmed from the initial CIT(A) order, not the subsequent rectification order. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income, and the AO made an addition for unexplained cash deposits. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for not being filed electronically.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed before the ITAT was maintainable when the assessee had subsequently obtained a rectification order from the CIT(A) on the same grounds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD

Before: V. DURGA RAO & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

For Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada, DR
Hearing: 05/03/2019Pronounced: 13/03/2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 940/Hyd/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ravinder Nanneboina, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Warangal. Ward-2, PAN: AHLPN 1206 F Warangal. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri K.C. Devdas Revenue by: Smt. M. Narmada, DR Date of hearing: 05/03/2019 Date of pronouncement: 13/03/2019 ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.:

This appeal is filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2014- 15 against the order of the CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad on 22/02/2018.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 on 15/11/2015 declaring total income of Rs. 3,38,507/-. During the assessment proceedings, considering the assessee’s failure to furnish any evidence / explanation for the sources of the cash deposits in bank, A.O. made addition of Rs. 21,80,00/- on account of ‘unexplained money in bank

account’ and brought it to tax and determined the assessed income at Rs. 25,23,763/-.

3.

Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal mannually, before the CIT(A). The CIT(A), observing that the assessee is required to file the appeal electronically, has dismissed the same in limine.

4.

Against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. The order of the Hon’ble CIT(A) is erroneous inlaw as well as facts of the case. 2. The Hon’ble CIT(A) ought to have taken into consideration the fact that the appellant e-filed the appeal on 10/02/2017 and therefore, the observation that the assessee did not e-file the appeal was without any basis and therefore, the order of the Hon’ble CIT(A) is liable to be set aside. 3. The Hon’ble CIT(A) ought to have allowed an opportunity to the assessee before making the observation that the assessee did not e-file the appeal as the assessee already e-filed the appeal on 10/902/2017 and in the absence of any opportunity the order of the Hon’ble CIT(A) is liable to be set aside. 4. Without prejudice to the decision with regard to e-filing of appeal, the Hon’ble CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated various grounds raised in appeal on merits.”

5.

The Learned Counsel for the Assessee, filed before us the order of the CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad passed u/s 154 of the Act and submitted that the fact of filing the appeal manually as well as electronically was brought to the notice of CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad and filed a petition u/s 154 of the Act requesting the Learned CIT(A) to rectify the mistake apparent from record and subsequently the order was passed on 31/08/2019 and adjudicated the appeal on merits. Therefore, he

prayed to take on record the order passed by the CIT(A) u/s 154 of the Act and pass necessary orders that may deem fit.

6.

After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the order of the A.O. and both the orders of the CIT(A) [(i) order dated 27/02/2018 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144 and (ii) order dated 31/08/2018 passed u/s 154 of the Act], we are of the considered opinion that since the grounds of appeal raised before us are emanating from the CIT(A)’s order and not from the order subsequently passed u/s 154 of the Act, the appeal filed by the assessee is not maintainable and we dismiss the same as infructuous.

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous.

Pronounced in the open Court on 13th March, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (V. DURGA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 13th March, 2019 OKK Copy to:- 1) B. Narsing Rao & Co., Chartered Accountants, Plot No.554, Road No.92, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad – 96. 2) ITO, Ward-2, Hyderabad. 3) The CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad 4) The Pr. CIT-3, Hyderabad 5) The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 6) Guard File

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →