ANNAPUREDDY VENKATRAMIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 831/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 September 2025AY 2017-18Bench: us : (i) The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is against the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case. (ii) The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the assessee opted not to communicate by email, therefore, the learned CIT erred in sending notices u/s 250 by email and further erred in confirming the addition made u/s 69A amounting to Rs.1,77,54,144/-. (iii) The learned Commissioner erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in wh1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the nature and source of the credits in the bank account. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not opt for email service of notices from the CIT(A) but also that physical notices were not served. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 26,38,500 in cash during the demonetization period and did not file a return of income or provide explanations for the source of funds. The Assessing Officer treated the total credit of Rs. 1,77,54,144 in the bank account as unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, and whether proper opportunity of hearing was provided to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 142(1),Section 133(6),Section 69A,Section 271B,Section 68,Section 2(24),Section 14,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

For Appellant: Shri Madan Mohan Meena

आदेशकी प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. निर्धाररती/The Assessee : Shri Annapureddy Venkatramireddy, 1-7- 92, Kamala Nagar, ECIL Post, Hyderabad 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : The Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), IT Towers, Masab Tank, Hyderabad 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad 4. नवभधगीय प्रनतनिनर्, आयकर अपीलीय अनर्करण, हैदरधबधद / DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 5. गधर्ाफ़धईल / Guard file

आदेशधिुसधर / BY ORDER

Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Hyderabad

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →