MANDAVILLI VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1136/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 October 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to decide appeals on merits, even if disposed of ex-parte, and failed to do so in this case. Therefore, the matter needs to be remanded.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed their return of income for AY 2016-17, which was later assessed at a higher total income. The Assessing Officer made an addition for unexplained cash deposits. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) rightly dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits, and whether the Tribunal should remand the case back to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Hearing: 07/10/2025

(निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-17) Shri Mandavilli Veera Venkata Dy. Commissioner of Income Vs. Tax, Circle 6(1), Hyderabad. Satyanarayana, Hyderabad. PAN: AFLPM8942M (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 07/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 26.06.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. The Return of Income for the A.Y. 2016-17 was filed on 30.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs.20,85,590/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment vide order dated 18.12.2018 passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) assessing the total income at Rs.25,85,590/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of cash deposited in the bank account Rs.5,0,000/- as unexplained money as the assessee failed to explain the sources of cash deposits with supporting evidences.

3.

Being aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide the impugned order, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution in limine.

4.

Being aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

I heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. I find that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution. As contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act the CIT(A), is required to frame points of determination followed by a detailed discussion thereupon before passing the order. It is the settled position of law that the CIT(A), even while disposing of the appeal exparte, is duty bound to dispose of the appeal on merits. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra 279 CTR 614. Therefore, in the light of the above legal position I am of the considered view that the matter requires to be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to dispose of the appeal de novo on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 10th Oct., 2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →