SHESHARAM KUMAWAT,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 191/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 May 2025AY 2017-18Bench: us :17 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidence filed by the assessee, considering the peculiar facts including the AO's ex-parte order and the assessee's initial unawareness of the proceedings. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after admitting the evidence.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 73,08,803/- as unexplained money under Section 69A due to cash deposits during demonetization and the assessee's failure to file a return or provide explanations. The assessee claimed the funds were from business receipts but failed to file returns due to an accountant's negligence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the additional evidence filed by the assessee, and whether the addition under Section 69A was sustainable without considering such evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 144,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘B‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Pronounced: 06.05.2025

आदेशकी प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to:-

1. 1. निर्धाररती/The Assessee : Shesharam Kumawat, 3-128, Puppalaguda, Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy District – 500089, Telangana. 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : Income Tax Officer, Ward – 8(2), Hyderabad.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →