ROMA INFRASTRUCTURES INDIA PVT LTD,ANANTAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER., WARD-1, ANANTAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1392/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 December 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Shri Ravish Sood (Judicial Member), Shri Madhusudan Sawdia (Accountant Member)5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted written replies, which the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider, leading to a violation of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to consider the submissions and allow further evidence.

What were the facts?

M/s. Roma Infrastructures India Private Limited's appeal against an AO's order for AY 2017-18, involving an addition of Rs. 1,67,94,080/- for unexplained bank deposits, was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) for non-compliance. The assessee argued that submissions were filed, and the dismissal was ex-parte and violative of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the assessee's submissions, thereby violating natural justice, and if the addition under Section 69 for unexplained bank deposits was correctly confirmed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ DB-B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri Ravish SoodShri Madhusudan Sawdia

Hearing: 27/11/2025

(िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/s. Roma Infrastructures Vs. Income Tax Officer India Private Limited, Ward – 1 Anantapur Anantapur PAN:AAECR8821M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Advocate S Sandhya राज� व �ारा/Revenue by:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 27/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/12/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by M/s. Roma Infrastructures India Private Limited (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 21.08.2025 for the A.Y. 2017-18.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order passed

Page 2 of 5 by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) for the assessment year 2017-18 under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 30.03.2022. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued during the appellate proceedings. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

4.

During the course of hearing, the Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order on 21.08.2025. She invited our attention to the acknowledgment of submissions filed before the Ld. CIT(A), placed at page no. 53 of the paper book, and submitted that the assessee had furnished written submissions before the Ld. CIT(A) on 14.01.2025 in response to the notice dated 07.01.2025. The Ld. AR further invited our attention to para no. 4.4 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), wherein it has been stated that the assessee failed to furnish any written submission in response to the notices issued. It was contended that this finding is factually incorrect, since the assessee’s submissions were indeed filed before the passing of the order on 21.08.2025. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed without considering the submissions placed on record and is consequently violative of the principles of natural justice. It was accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be set aside and the matter may be remanded for fresh consideration.

5.

Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) did not raise any serious objection to the submission of the assessee and fairly left the matter to the discretion of the Tribunal.

6.

We have carefully considered the submissions of the Ld. AR and the Ld. DR and examined the material available on record. From the acknowledgment placed at page no. 53 of the paper book, it is evident that the assessee had filed written submissions on 14.01.2025 before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A), in para no. 4.4 of the impugned order, has categorically stated that no submissions were filed by the assessee. This factual inconsistency clearly indicates that the submissions filed by the assessee were not considered while disposing of the appeal. An appellate order passed without considering the written submissions placed before it suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. Therefore, in the interest of justice, and to provide the assessee a fair opportunity of being heard, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for de novo adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) shall consider the submissions already filed by the assessee and shall also afford the assessee liberty to file any further evidence or explanation in support of his claim. The assessee is directed not to seek unnecessary adjournments and to cooperate in the appellate proceedings, failing which the Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to decide the matter in accordance with law.

7.

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

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →