DEVARAJ GOUD KARRE,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD
आआआआ आआआआआआ आआआआआआ, आआआआआआआआ आआआ
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad
BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.79/Hyd/2025
(निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14)
Shri Devaraj Goud Karre,
Hyderabad.
PAN:AOLPK1607G
Vs.
Income Tax Officer,
Ward-7(1), Hyderabad.
(Appellant)
(Respondent)
निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar,
Advocate.
रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue by:: Shri Karthik Manickam, SR-DR
सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 10/02/2025
घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 14/02/2025
आदेश/ORDER
PER SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO :
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated
05.02.2024 of Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Nagpur (“Ld. CIT(A)) for the Assessment
Year 2013-14. 2. At the time of hearing, the Learned Authorised Representative submitted that this appeal has been filed by the assessee against a duplicate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in faceless proceedings, whereas the appeal of the assessee was already disposed of by the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 28.09.2017 against which, the assessee filed an appeal before this Tribunal in ITA No.1925/Hyd/2017 which was decided vide order dated 30.05.2018. Thus the Ld. AR has submitted that when the Tribunal
ITA No.79/Hyd/2025 2
has already decided the appeal of the assessee against the first order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dated 28.09.2017, then the second order passed in the faceless proceedings is nonest and liable to be set aside.
3. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has not disputed the fact that earlier the assessee has filed an appeal against order dated 28.09.2017 and this Tribunal vide order dated 30.05.2018 in ITA No.1925/Hyd/2017 has already decided the appeal of the assessee.
4. Having considered the rival submissions and careful perusal of the relevant material on record, at the outset, we note that this Tribunal vide order dated 30.05.2018 in ITA No.1925/Hyd/2017 has decided the appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 28.09.2017 of Ld. CIT(A) – 3,
Hyderabad for the A.Y. 2013-14. The Tribunal has also reproduced the grounds raised by the assessee in the earlier appeal in ITA
No.1925/Hyd/2017 as under :
“(1) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erroneous on facts and law involved in the case.
(2) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals} erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer on estimation of income from liquor business at 5%
on cost of sales as against without considering the appellant submissions.
(3) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the books of accounts without considering the appellant submissions.
(4) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition an amount of Rs 20,00,000/- treating as income from other sources.
(5) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in determining the total income at Rs 42,62,820/- as against ROI of Rs 3,19,020/- (6) Any other ground/grounds may be urged at the time hearing.”
ITA No.79/Hyd/2025 3
Now the Ld. CIT(A) in faceless proceedings again passed the impugned order dated 05.02.2024 arising from the same assessment order dated 30.03.2016 for the A.Y. 2013-14. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer while passing the exparte order when there was no response to the notices sent to the assessee. Once the dispute arising from the assessment order has already been decided by this Tribunal in the earlier appeal, then, the second order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in faceless proceedings is nothing but duplication of the earlier order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) – 3, Hyderabad dated 28.09.2017. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the earlier order of this Tribunal dated 30.05.2018, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable being nonest and the same is set aside. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 14th Feb., 2025. (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) (VIJAY PAL RAO)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
Hyderabad.
Dated: 14.02.2025. * Reddy gp
ITA No.79/Hyd/2025 4
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
Shri Devaraj Goud Karre, E-Block, Flat No.101,Aditya Empress Towers, Shaikpet Nala, Tolichowki, Golconda Post, Hyderabad-500008 2. ITO, Ward 7(1), Hyderabad. 3. Pr. CIT, Hyderabad. 4. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 5. Guard File.
BY ORDER,