What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT allowed the admission of additional evidence, finding that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing it earlier. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication.

The assessee's appeal for AY 2006-07 was dismissed by the CIT(A) for not furnishing evidence to prove agricultural income. The assessee sought to admit additional evidence before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from furnishing evidence before the lower authorities and if additional evidence should be admitted.

P.V. Ramana Reddy. vs ACIT | ITAT Hyderabad 2018

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

Before: SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao

For Respondent: Shri K. Gopala Krishna

Hearing: 10/05/2018Pronounced: 10/05/2018

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of CIT(A) – 12, Hyderabad dated 17/04/2016, for AY 2006-07.

The assessee filed an application under Rule 29 of the ITAT rules for the admission of additional evidence. After going through the same, I am of the considered opinion that this is a fit case for admission of additional evidence as where the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause to file the required/ requested documents before the AO or the First Appellate Authority, to prove the quantum of agricultural income. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as the assessee has not utilized the opportunities provided to him for furnishing the evidence.

As I am convinced that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from furnishing the evidences before the lower

2 ITA No. 1115/Hyd/17 P.V. Ramana Reddy authorities, the case is remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to consider the evidences filed by the assessee and adjudicate the issue de-novo in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the matter.

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

Pronounced in the open Court on 10th May, 2018.

Sd/- (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Hyderabad, Dated: 10th May, 2018 kv

Copy to:-

1) Shri P.V. Ramana Reddy, C/o P. Murali & Co., CAs, 6-3-655/2/3, 1st Floor, Somajiguda, Hyderabad – 82 2) ACIT, Centrla Circle – 5, Hyderabad. 3) CIT(A) –12, Hyderabad. 4) Pr. CIT (Central), Hyd. 5) The Departmental Representative, I.T.A.T., Hyderabad. 6) Guard File

P.V. RAMANA REDDY.,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments