CHEERLA SRINIVAS,TANUKU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TANUKU
Facts
The assessee, engaged in liquor business, filed his return for AY 2012-13. Subsequent information about cash deposits in an accountant's bank account, belonging to the assessee, led the AO to initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 and make additions. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal against the AO's order, erroneously terming it "infructuous".
Held
The tribunal observed that the CIT(A) mistakenly considered a National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) order pertaining to a different assessee (Shri Dhana Raju Thota) as belonging to the current assessee. Given this error, the tribunal remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is given an opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal as infructuous based on an order pertaining to a different assessee, and if the matter should be remitted back for fresh adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 148, 143(2), 142(1), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE
आदेश /O R D E R PER SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT (A), Bhubaneswar [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1074372278(1) dated 11.03.2025 for the A.Y.2012-13 arising out of the order passed under
ITA No. 360/VIZ/2025 Cheerla Srinivas section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 26.12.2019.
Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is an individual and carrying on the business of purchase and sale of liquor in the name and style of 'Super Wines' at Mukkamala. Assessee has filed his return of income for the A.Y.2012-13 on 18.09.2012 admitting total income of Rs.6,15,780/- and the return was summarily processed. Subsequently, Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"] received information that there were cash deposits of Rs.1,42,68,720/- in the bank account of one Sri Telagareddy Vijay Kumar. The Ld. AO enquired into the matter and found that the above said person was accountant of the assessee and that the amounts deposited in his bank account belong to the assessee. Thereafter, Ld. AO issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 31.03.2019. In response to notice under section 148 of the Act, assessee filed return of income on 27.11.2019 admitting the same income as originally admitted. Subsequently, statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee, calling for certain information. In response, assessee furnished computation statement, audit report in 3CB & 3CD Trading, P & L A/c, Balance sheet and copies of bank statement, and submitted that Shri Telagareddy Vijay Kumar deposited the sale proceeds of liquor business in assessee’s account. Not convinced with the submissions of the assessee, Ld. AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 26.12.2019 determining the income of the assessee at Rs.13,63,640/- by making addition of
Page No. 2
ITA No. 360/VIZ/2025 Cheerla Srinivas Rs.13,48,237/- being 5% of the stock put to sale i.e., Rs.2,70,70,113/- and also added interest on FDR of Rs.15,403/-.
On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee as infructuous.
On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us by raising following revised grounds of appeal: -
“1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal as infructuous by stating that this appeal has been already disposed by the NFAC vide Order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1047737239(1) dt.30.11.2022. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.7,47,860 made by the assessing officer towards business income estimated at 5% by adopting the purchases at Rs.2,70,70,113 as against actual purchases of Rs.81,41,817. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.
At the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in considering the decision in ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1047737239(1) dated 30.11.2022 pertains to the assessee and hence rejected the appeal as infructuous. He further submitted that the order number quoted by the Ld. CIT(A) belongs to another assessee and does not belong to the assessee in appeal. He therefore pleaded that file may be remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
Page No. 3
ITA No. 360/VIZ/2025 Cheerla Srinivas 6. Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld.DR”] relied on the order s of the Ld. CIT(A).
We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the Ld. CIT(A) while rejecting the appeal as infructuous has considered the order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1047737239(1) dated 30.11.2022 pertain to Shri Dhana Raju Thota as the appeal filed by the assessee. The extract of the first page of the Ld. CIT(A) order is displayed below: -
Page No. 4
ITA No. 360/VIZ/2025 Cheerla Srinivas
It is apparent that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in considering Shri Dhanaraju Thota as appellant in the appeal of the assessee and thereby rejected the appeal Page No. 5
ITA No. 360/VIZ/2025 Cheerla Srinivas filed by the assessee as infructuous. In these circumstances, considering the plea of the Ld.AR, we remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the case on merits in accordance with law by providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd August, 2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (रिीश सूद) (एस बालाकृष्णन) (RAVISH SOOD) (S. BALAKRISHNAN) न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:22.08.2025 Giridhar, Sr.PS
आदेश की प्रतततिति अग्रेतषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. तिर्ााररती/ The Assessee : Cheerla Srinivas D.No. 23-12-1 Near Water Tank Sajjapuram, Tanuku – 534211 Andhra Pradesh 2. राजस्व/ The Revenue : Income Tax Officer - Ward – 1 Income Tax Office Aayakar Bhavan, Sajjapuram Tanuku 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4. तिभागीयप्रतततितर्, आयकरअिीिीयअतर्करण, तिशाखािटणम /DR,ITAT, Visakhapatnam 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax 6. गार्ाफ़ाईि / Guard file आदेशािुसार / BY ORDER
Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam Page No. 6
