RAVINDAR REDDY MIRYALA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

None has appeared on behalf of the assessee when this appeal was called for hearing, despite notice was issued to the assessee along with notice sent to the e-mail ID. It transpires from the record that even in response to the earlier notice issued by the Tribunal, there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee. It also transpires from the record that on the last date of hearing, i.e., on 23.06.2025, hearing was adjourned at the request of the assessee for 15.07.2025, however, despite the adjournment of hearing was granted at the request of the assessee, there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee on 15.07.2025. Therefore,

The Ld.DR has submitted that there was no response and compliance on behalf of the assessee in response to the various notices issued by the AO. He has thus referred to the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has also passed the impugned order ex-parte, when there was no response to the various notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A). He has pointed out that the Ld.CIT(A) has issued as many as 15 notices, out of which, the assessee has sought adjournment on four occasions and there was no compliance in response to the 11 notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A). Thus, the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution.

Having considered the submissions of the Ld.DR and careful perusal of the orders of the authorities below, we found that the AO has made addition of Rs.73,20,000/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), when the assessee has failed to discharge his onus of proving the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors as well as the genuineness of the transactions. Thus, it is manifest from the assessment order that there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee to the various notices issued by the AO, accordingly, the AO proceeded to frame the assessment u/s 144 of the Act. Thereafter, there was only a 6 Ravindar Reddy Miryala partial compliance as the assessee has filed the bank account statement of only two parties out of the seven parties from whom the assessee claimed to have taken the loan. Before the Ld.CIT(A), there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee and consequently, the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. Accordingly, the conduct of the assessee is very casual in prosecuting the matters. However, the Ld.CIT(A) instead of deciding the appeal on merits, has dismissed the same for non-prosecution, which is contrary to the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) not deciding the appeal on merit is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after giving one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 6th August, 2025. (MANJUNATHA G.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated 6th August, 2025 L.Rama, SPS