JAGADESWARI MAHENDRAN,PUTTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), TIRUPATI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 727/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 July 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI MANJUNATHA G (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to rectify defects in the appeal filing and did not appear before the Tribunal. Due to these procedural deficiencies and non-compliance, the appeal was considered defective and not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, failed to file an income tax return. The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under section 147, citing undisclosed immovable property purchases and interest income. The assessee did not respond to notices from the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal is maintainable due to several defects in filing and the assessee's non-appearance before the tribunal and lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(a),Section 147,Section 148A,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 69,Section 140,Section 8

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI MANJUNATHA G & SHRI RAVISH SOOD

Hearing: 16.07.2025Pronounced: 16.07.2025

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.727/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Jagadeshwari Mahendran, The Income Tax Officer, PUTTUR – 517 583. Ward-1(3), vs. Chittoor District. TIRUPATI – 517 501. PAN BCUPM9885J Chittoor District. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 16.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 16.07.2025 ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G. :

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 21.02.2025 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2018-2019.

2.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and had not filed return of income u/sec.139(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short "the

2 ITA.No.727/Hyd./2025 Act"]. As per NMS/AIMS data extracted from ITBA system, the assessee has purchased immovable property totaling to Rs.9,15,00,000/- (Rs.1,35,00,00/- + Rs.7,80,00,000/-) during the year under consideration. Further, the assessee has received interest income of Rs.28,725/-from Apollo Tyres Limited and also received interest income of Rs.4,613/- from Karur Vysya Bank Limited during the year under consideration. Since assessee has not filed ITR and offered income from these transaction to tax, the said income of assessee has escaped assessment and needs to be brought under taxation. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has reason believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and reopened the assessment u/sec.147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer issued notice dated 12.04.2022 u/sec.148A of the Act calling the assessee to furnish the explanation. Further, the Assessing Officer also issued various notices u/sec.142(1) and show cause notice u/sec.144 of the Act. Since, the assessee did not respond to any of the notices issued by the Assessing Officer and in absence of explanation offered by the assessee with relevant

3 ITA.No.727/Hyd./2025 documentary evidence, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.9,15,33,338/- by making additions of Rs.9,15,00,000/- u/sec.69 of the Act as unexplained investment and interest income of Rs.33,338/- as against the NIL return of income filed by the assessee vide order dated 19.02.2024 passed u/sec.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3.

On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Since the assessee did not appear before the learned CIT(A), the learned CIT(A) had sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

4.

Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

At the very outset, it is noticed that, the Registry has issued ‘defect notice’ dated 15.05.2025 calling the assessee to rectify the following defects :

(i) Grounds before ITAT not signed by the person authorised u/sec.140 of the IT Act.

4 ITA.No.727/Hyd./2025 (ii) Grounds of appeal filed before the Tribunal not arising out of the order appealed against. (iii) Grounds of appeal filed before Tribunal not in conformity with Rule 8 of ITAT Rules, 1963. (iv) Memorandum of appeal not (property) signed/verified by the person authorized u/sec.140 of the IT Act, 1961. (v) Order appealed against is not uploaded.

6.

However, the assessee did not rectify the above defects and also not appeared before the Tribunal at the time of hearing of the appeal or filed written submissions or letter seeking for adjournment of the appeal. We, therefore, proceed to decide the appeal, after hearing the Learned CIT- DR.

7.

Shri B Bala Krishna, learned CIT-DR submitted that, the assessee did not appear before the lower authorities despite service of statutory notices calling the assessee to submit the explanation along with supporting documentary evidence. In absence of explanation and 5 ITA.No.727/Hyd./2025 relevant documents, the Assessing Officer has made the additions. Even during the course of appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A) also, the assessee did not appear. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) has sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer. He further drew the attention of the Bench that, this lackadaisical approach of the assessee has continued before the Tribunal too and, therefore, this kind of practice by assessee should be deprecated and submitted that, the appeal of the assessee be dismissed in the interest of justice.

8.

We have heard the Learned DR and perused the material available on record. We find that, the Registry of the Tribunal has issued ‘defect notice’ dated 15.05.2025 calling the assessee to rectify the defects which are reproduced in the preceding paragraph no.5 hereinabove. However, the assessee did not rectify the said defects nor appeared on the date of hearing. From the above, it is noticed that, the assessee is a non-complaint at all stages of proceedings including the proceedings before the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) where the authorities below

6 ITA.No.727/Hyd./2025 have passed ex-parte order for non-prosecution. Further, the assessee, although, filed appeal before the Tribunal, but, the said appeal is ‘defective’ which is not in compliance with the Rule 8 of I.T. Rules, 1963 and, therefore, we have considered the appeal filed by the assessee as not maintainable and thus, the same is dismissed as ‘defective’.

9.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as ‘defective’.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →