SADHU RAMA KRISHNAREDDY,NALGONDA vs. ITO., WARD-1, SURYAPET

ITA 833/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 October 2025AY 2017-18Bench: us: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erroneous both on facts and in law. is 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is not justified in deciding the appeal ex parte without providing any opportunity and without issuing any notices.3. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is not justified in not considering the grounds raised by the appellant in the appeal filed 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) considered the irrelevan1 pages

AI SummarySet Aside

Facts

The assessee filed a return of income for AY 2017-18. The AO selected the case for scrutiny and made additions for unexplained cash deposits and estimated business income. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte.

Held

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred by dismissing the appeal based on facts and grounds not related to the assessee, constituting a miscarriage of justice.

Key Issues

Whether the CIT(A) correctly adjudicated the appeal when the order was based on irrelevant facts and grounds, leading to a dismissal without proper consideration of the assessee's case.

Sections Cited

143(3), 142(1), 69A, 10(23C)(iii)(ab), 147, 144, 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

आदेशक��त�ल�पअ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. �नधा�रती/The : Sadhu Rama Krishnareddy, Venkepalli Village, Noothankal Mandal, Nalgonda, Assessee Telangana. 2. राज�व/ : Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Suryapet, The Telangana. Revenue 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.