MALLADI PANDURANGA PARAMESWARA RAO,KAKINADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAKINADA
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2016-17, which confirmed additions made by the AO for unexplained cash deposits, purchase of asset, and undisclosed capital gains. The assessee failed to respond to notices and appear before both the AO and CIT(A), leading to ex-parte orders confirming the additions.
Held
Despite the assessee's repeated non-compliance at all levels, the Tribunal took a lenient view and granted a final opportunity. The case is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to present all requisite details and documentary evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the lower authorities erred in confirming additions ex-parte due to non-compliance, and whether the assessee should be given a further opportunity to explain the source of cash deposits and asset purchases.
Sections Cited
147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH AT HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
आदेश/ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 20.05.2025 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi for the A.Y. 2016-17. 2. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee when this appeal was called for hearing despite repeated notices sent through Regd. Post AD as well as e-mail on the e-mail ID given in the Form No.36. It transpires from
ITA No.407/VIZ/2025 2
the record that the notice sent through Regd. Post AD was received back unserved with the postal remark that addressee is not found at the given address. Accordingly, the bench proposed to hear and dispose off this appeal exparte. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
The assessee has raised the ground against the impugned order that the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider the information / details explaining the source of cash deposits made in the bank account and the purchase of asset. The Ld. DR has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order exparte when there was no compliance to the various
ITA No.407/VIZ/2025 3
notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). He has referred to the four notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) against which the assessee has sought the adjournments without submitting any details and therefore in the absence of any supporting evidence, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Having considered the submissions of the Ld. DR and going through the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), at the outset, we note that the Assessing Officer has made addition on account of unexplained investment in the property as well as deposits in the bank account of the assessee along with undisclosed income from capital gains while passing the order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income Tax Act, 1962 (the Act). Thus it is clear that the assessment order was passed exparte when the assessee did not participate and and also not filed the requisite details in response to the notices. Even before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has not submitted any details or supporting evidences to explain the source of investment, deposit in the bank account as well as furnish the explanation for short term capital gain. The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in para nos.6.1 to 6.5 as under :
ITA No.407/VIZ/2025 4
ITA No.407/VIZ/2025 5
ITA No.407/VIZ/2025 6
It is clear that at the level of Assessing Officer as well as Ld. CIT(A), there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee to the notices issued by the authorities. Thus the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) for want of any evidence on behalf of the assessee. Even the assessee has not responded to the notices issued by this Tribunal and there is no representation on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we are taking a lenient view and grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case and file the requisite details and documentary evidence for verification and examination of the Assessing Officer. Hence the matter is remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after giving one more opportunity to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 26th Sept., 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) (VIJAY PAL RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Hyderabad. Dated: 26.09.2025. * Reddy gp
ITA No.407/VIZ/2025 7
Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. Shri Malladi Panduranga Parameswara Rao, 54-4-1, Church Square Centre, Jaganaaikpur, Kakinada-533 001 2. The ITO, Kakinada. 3. Pr.CIT, Visakhapatnam. 4. DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER,
