LATE M. RAVINDER REDDY REP. BY L/R. M. JYOTHI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1494/HYD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 February 2018AY 2009-103 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 dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance and failure to provide any evidence to contradict the tax authorities' findings regarding the unexplained cash credits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a salaried employee, was subjected to an addition of Rs. 19,23,916/- towards unexplained cash credits. The assessee failed to appear before the Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and the ITAT, despite notices and adjournments.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of unexplained cash credits is justified when the assessee fails to appear and provide supporting evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” SMC BENCH: HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI D. MANMOHAN

Hearing: 05.02.2018Pronounced: 05.02.2018

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” SMC BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA. No. 1494/Hyd/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Late Sri M. Ravinder Reddy, vs. Income Tax Officer, (Represented by Smt. M. Jyothi, Ward-12(4), Wife and L/R of M. Ravinder Hyderabad. Reddy) 8-2-203/82/A/93/1, Road No.40, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. PAN: ADGPM 6020 P (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee: None For Revenue : Smt. N. Swapna, DR Date of Hearing : 05.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 05.02.2018 ORDER PER D. MANMOHAN, VP. This appeal is filed at the instance of assessee and it pertains to assessment year 2009-2010. Though Shri M. Ravinder Reddy, assessee in this appeal, expired, an appeal was filed in the name of Shri M. Ravinder Reddy but, in the Verification Colum Smt. M. Jyothi has appended her signature as wife and representative of Late Mr. M. Ravinder Reddy. The address of Shri D. Rajasekhar, Chartered Accountant was given for issuing of notices etc., to the assessee and accordingly a notice was sent by Registered Post which was returned by the Postal Authorities with a remark “Deceased – Returned to Sender”. In other words, Shri D. Rajasekhar’s office refused to take the notice and the assessee did not furnish any other address to enable the

Registry to serve a notice. Under these circumstances, I have no other alternative except to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, qua the assessee.

An addition of Rs. 19,23,916/- towards ‘unexplained cash credits’ is in dispute before the Tribunal. Assessee is a salaried employee. There were certain investments which were noticed and the assessee was called upon to explain the cash credits but the assessee having not appeared either in person or through his representative, assessment was made u/s 144 of the Act wherein a sum of Rs. 19,23,916/- was added to the total income declared by the assessee.

Even before the Ld. CIT(A) none appeared on behalf of the assessee though number of adjournments were granted. Since, there is no other information with regard to the source of cash credits, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.

Even before the Tribunal, no evidence was placed either in the form of filing of paper book or otherwise to contradict the findings of the Tax Authorities. Under these circumstances, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced accordingly in the open Court on 05th February, 2018.

Sd/- (D. MANMOHAN) VICE PRESIDENT Hyderabad, Dated: 05th February, 2018.

OKK, Sr.PS

Copy to

Shri M. Ravinder Reddy, C/o. D. Rajasekhar, Chartered Accountants, Plot No.42, Andhra Bank Colony, Near Konark Diagnostic Centre, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 12(4), Hyderabad. 3. CIT (A)-1, Hyderabad. 4. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Hyderabad. 5. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 6. Guard File

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →