ANEEMONI NAGA RAJU,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 8(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 2074/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 March 2026AY 2020-202112 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not entirely correct in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of non-compliance with Section 249(4)(b) without proper adjudication. The Tribunal noted that Section 249(4)(b) requires payment of an amount equal to the advance tax payable when no return is filed, with a proviso allowing the CIT(A) to exempt the assessee for good and sufficient reasons upon application. The Tribunal found that there was no computation of advance tax by either the assessee or the AO under Section 209. Therefore, the CIT(A) could not have summarily discarded the assessee's claim that no advance tax was payable in the absence of taxable income. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee failed to file an application for exemption under the proviso to Section 249(4). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for readjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to afford the assessee an opportunity to be heard regarding his claim that Section 249(4)(b) was not applicable. If the CIT(A) finds the claim valid or grants exemption, the appeal should be disposed of on merits. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Aneemoni Naga Raju, filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] against an order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-21. The AO had initiated reassessment proceedings due to substantial financial transactions and the assessee's failure to file a return of income. The AO made additions of Rs. 1,10,93,131/- as unexplained money under Section 69A and Rs. 48,345/- as income from other sources, determining the total income at Rs. 1,11,41,480/-. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, holding that the assessee had not paid the advance tax as required under Section 249(4)(b) of the Act, as no return of income was filed. The assessee's appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenges the CIT(A)'s dismissal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely under Section 249(4)(b) without providing an opportunity for exemption and without issuing a show-cause notice, thereby violating natural justice, as argued by the assessee. 2. Whether the assessment under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B is invalid due to non-consideration of detailed information and explanations, and violation of natural justice, as contended by the assessee. 3. Whether the AO erred in treating bank credits totaling Rs. 1,11,41,476/- in the assessee's savings account as unexplained money under Section 69A, thereby classifying the entire amount as income from other sources, as argued by the assessee. The assessee contended that specific credits were explained as hand loans, sale proceeds of property transferred between accounts, and re-deposited withdrawn funds. The revenue did not record specific arguments on these points in the provided text. 4. Whether the AO erred in treating cash deposits of Rs. 20,77,000/- as unexplained under Section 69A, despite the assessee's explanation that the funds were withdrawn for a business that did not materialize due to COVID-19 and were subsequently re-deposited, as argued by the assessee. The revenue did not record specific arguments on this point. 5. Whether the AO erroneously brought to tax Rs. 18,16,631/- as business turnover/receipts and Rs. 48,350/- as interest income under Section 69A, as argued by the assessee. The revenue did not record specific arguments on these points.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69A,Section 249(4),Section 156,Section 209

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad B Bench, Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri Bhupal Goud M, CA
For Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Pronounced: 20/03/2026

PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee firm is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 30/09/2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under Section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 13/03/2025 for the Assessment

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →