KAPA SINDHU MITRA,USA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the DRP's rejection of objections on technical grounds without providing an opportunity to rectify the defect violated principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Final Assessment Order and DRP Directions were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the DRP to allow rectification of defects and decide the objections on merits after a proper hearing.
What were the facts?
The assessee, an NRI, challenged an assessment order for A.Y. 2016-17, which included an addition of Rs.25,00,000/- under Section 69A concerning payments from a joint bank account with her mother, claiming these were her mother's funds. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) rejected the assessee's objections to the draft assessment order on the technical ground that they were not filed in the prescribed Form 35A, without offering an opportunity to rectify the defect.
What were the issues?
Whether the DRP's rejection of the assessee's objections on a technicality without an opportunity to rectify violated principles of natural justice, and the validity of the addition made under Section 69A.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 144C,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 144B,Section 151A,Section 149,Section 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MANJUNATHA G
PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT :
This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the assessment order dated 13.03.2024 passed u/sec.147 r.w.s.144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short "the Act"] in pursuance to the Directions of the Disputes Resolution Panel-1 [in short “DRP”], Bengaluru, dated
2 ITA.No.513/Hyd./2024 23.02.2024 passed u/sec.144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2016-2017. 2. The Registry has reported delay of 01 day in filing the present appeal. We have heard the learned Authorised Repre
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026