BURRE SREENIVASA MADHURI,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 269/VIZ/2025Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 June 2025AY 2016-175 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, observed that the Learned CIT(A) had provided opportunities on several occasions, but the assessee neither appeared nor complied with the notices. Considering the submissions of the Learned AR and the totality of facts, and in the interest of providing substantial justice, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the file of the Learned CIT(A) for fresh consideration and decision on merits, in order to meet the principles of natural justice. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the Learned CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Burre Sreenivasa Madhuri, an individual, filed an appeal before the ITAT against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2016-17. The case was reopened by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on information that the assessee, along with her husband, purchased an immovable property for Rs. 33,60,000/- on 23.12.2015. The AO noted that while the husband's contribution was explained, the assessee's contribution of Rs. 11,76,100/- remained unexplained. The assessee's claims of funds from gifts and a gold loan were not supported by bank statements or her husband's assessment records. Consequently, the AO added Rs. 11,76,100/- as unexplained investment under Section 69. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), but failed to provide supporting documents despite receiving hearing notices. The CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex-parte.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 11,76,100/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, towards unexplained investment in immovable property? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 69). Assessee's contention: The Learned CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the assessee pleaded for one more opportunity before the Learned CIT(A) and for the matter to be remitted back to the file of the Learned CIT(A). Revenue's contention: The Learned Departmental Representative relied on the order of the Learned CIT(A), submitting that the assessee had not utilized the opportunity provided by the Learned CIT(A). Therefore, the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) was ex-parte, and the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities should be confirmed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 147,Section 144,Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI VEERAVALLI DURGA RAO, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Smt A. Aruna, Advocate

आदेश /O R D E R

PER SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073628864(1) dated 24.02.2025 for the I.T.A.No.269/VIZ/2025 Burre Sreenivasa Madhuri A.Y.2016-17 arising out of order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 29.03.2022.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is an individual deriving income from salary and filed return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 on 10.06.2016 admitting a total income of Rs.2,64,730/-. The case of the assessee was reopened based on information that assessee, along with her husband, purchased an immovable property worth Rs. 33,60,000/- on 23.12.2015. Subsequently, statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"] noticed that the husband's source of his share was explained, but the assessee's contribution of Rs.11,76,100/- remained unexplained. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed the funds came from gifts received from her father, father-in-law, and a gold loan. However, Ld. AO noticed that bank statements did not support these claims, and her husband's assessment records did not confirm the Rs. 10,00,000/- gift. Thus, Ld. AO proceeded to complete the assessment by making addition of Rs.11,76,100/- as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act.

3.

On being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) but the assessee even after receipt of the hearing notices did not file any supporting documents on her contentions as per the grounds of appeal raised

Page No. 2

I.T.A.No.269/VIZ/2025 Burre Sreenivasa Madhuri bythe assessee as called for. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal exparte based on the material available on record.

4.

On being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised following 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 (Appels) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 11,76,100/- made by the assessing officer under section 69 of the Act towards unexplained investment in immovable property. 3. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.”

5.

At the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that Ld.CIT(A) passed exparte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, considering additions/disallowance made by the Ld. AO, Ld.AR pleaded that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).

6.

On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld. DR”] relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that assessee has not utilized the opportunity provided by Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is exparte order and pleaded to confirm the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities.

Page No. 3

I.T.A.No.269/VIZ/2025 Burre Sreenivasa Madhuri 7. We have heard both the sidesand perused the material available on record. On a perusal of theLd.CIT(A) order, it is observed that even though the Ld.CIT(A) provided opportunity on several occasions, assessee could not appear nor complied to the notices issued. Considering the submissions of the Ld. AR and totality of facts and keeping in view the additions / disallowance made by the Ld. AO, in the interest of providing substantial justice, we are of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to meet the principles of natural justice, we are of the view that it is a fit case to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration and decide the case on merits. Assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments.Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18th June,2025.

Sd/- Sd/- (िीरिल्ली दुर्ाा राि) (एस बालाकृष्णन) (VEERAVALLI DURGA RAO) (S. BALAKRISHNAN) न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 18.06.2025 Giridhar, Sr.PS

Page No. 4

I.T.A.No.269/VIZ/2025 Burre Sreenivasa Madhuri

आदेशकीप्रनतनलनपअग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to :-

1. 1. निर्धाररती/ The Assessee : Burre Sreenivasa Madhuri F-24/4, APPM Township Mallayyapeta quarters Mallayyapeta, Rajahmundry – 533105 Andhra Pradesh 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : Income Tax Officer - Ward 2(1) Income Tax Office, Aayakar Bhavan Veerabhadrapuram Kambala Cheruvu Rajahmundry - 533105 Andhra Pradesh 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax नवभधगीयप्रनतनिनर्, आयकरअपीलीयअनर्करण, नवशधखधपटणम /DR,ITAT, Visakhapatnam 4.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →