A S PHARMA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 503/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 October 2025AY 2017-18Bench: us: "1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is against the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case.1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide proper notice to the assessee for the hearing of the appeal, leading to an ex-parte dismissal. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee firm filed its return of income, which was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 13,75,500/- under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, treating it as unexplained income. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly served notice to the assessee, and if the ex-parte order passed without proper notice is sustainable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 69A,Section 143(2),Section 143(3),Section 282,Section 127

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘SM’ Bench, Hyderabad

आदेशक���त�ल�पअ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. �नधा�रती/The : A S Pharma, 11-2-221 and 221/1, Nampally, Hyderabad-500001, Telangana. Assessee 2. राज�व/ : Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Signature The Towers, Kondapur, Hyderabad, Telangana- Revenue 500084. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad. 4. �वभागीय��त�न�ध, आयकरअपील�यअ�धकरण /DR,ITAT, Hyderabad. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax 6. गाड�फ़ाईल / Guard file

आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER

Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Hyderabad.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →