GAIRUBOINA SUBBAIAH L/R OF LATE GAIRUBOINA SAMBASIVA RAO,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 270/VIZ/2025Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 June 2025AY 2015-165 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the submissions of both parties and the material on record, observed that the CIT(A) had provided opportunities on several occasions, but the assessee neither appeared nor complied with the notices. However, in the interest of providing substantial justice and to meet the principles of natural 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 CIT(A) for fresh consideration and decision on merits. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The specific findings on the validity of the notice under Section 148, the reassessment proceedings, and the additions made under Section 69A and towards capital gains were not adjudicated on merits, as the case was remitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Gairuboina Subbaiah (L/R of Late Gairuboina Sambasiva Rao), is an individual who did not file a return of income for Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on information regarding TDS on immovable property acquisition (Rs. 10,01,035) and cash deposits in bank accounts (Rs. 29,50,000). Despite notices under Section 148 and Section 142(1), the assessee did not comply. The AO completed the assessment ex-parte under Section 144, determining the income at Rs. 39,62,242 by adding Rs. 29,61,207 and Rs. 10,01,035. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], who also disposed of the appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance. The assessee then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte, and if the assessee ought to be granted another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A)? (Mixed law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). 2. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was barred by limitation? (Question of law, concerning limitation periods for issuing notices). 3. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 and the consequent reassessment proceedings were invalid and void ab initio? (Question of law, concerning the validity of reassessment proceedings). 4. Whether the addition of Rs. 29,50,000 made by the AO towards unexplained cash deposits in a bank account under Section 69A of the Act ought to be deleted? (Mixed law and fact, concerning the onus of proof for unexplained cash credits). 5. Whether the addition of Rs. 10,01,035 made by the AO towards short-term capital gains ought to be deleted? (Mixed law and fact, concerning the nature and taxability of income). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard and requested a remand to the CIT(A) for a fresh opportunity. Revenue's Contention: The revenue relied on the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the assessee had not utilized the opportunities provided by the CIT(A) and therefore, the ex-parte order should be confirmed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 69A

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
Pronounced: 18.06.2025

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.

I.T.A.No.270/VIZ/2025 Gairuboina Subbaiah ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073674979(1) dated 25.02.2025 for the A.Y.2015-16 arising out of order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 23.03.2024.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is an individual and has not filed return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16. Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"] received information from the Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT through insight portal under the head “NMS cases” that assessee has entered into following transactions: -

Information Description Source Amount (Rs.) TDS Statement – Compensation Revenue Divisions 10,01,035/- on acquisition of certain Office – Guntur Immovable property (Section 194LA) Deposit In cash aggregating to State Bank of 29,50,000 Rs.2,00,000/- or more, with a Hyderabad, 21130 banking company Mangalagiri Deposited cash of Rs. 10,00,000 State Bank of 29,50,000 or more in a saving bank Hyderabad – account Gunfoundry Br.

Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act with the prior approval of the competent authority. Subsequently, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 07.04.2022. In response, the assessee had not complied to the notice. Later the case was assigned to National Faceless Appeal centre, Delhi and the same was transferred to Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Further, Statutory notices under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on various dates from time to time. In response,

Page No. 2

I.T.A.No.270/VIZ/2025 Gairuboina Subbaiah assessee failed to furnish the details called for. Therefore, Ld. AO proceeded to complete the assessment under section 144 of the Act and determined the income of the assessee at Rs.39,62,242/- by making addition of Rs. 29,61,207/- towards income from other sources and Rs.10,0101,035/- towards income from capital gains.

3. On being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but the assessee even after receipt of the hearing notices on various dates did not file any supporting documents on his contentions as per the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee as called for. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal exparte based on the merits 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 (Appeals) is not justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte.

3.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have quashed the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act as barred by limitation.

4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have quashed the notice issued u/s 148 as invalid and the consequent reassessment proceedings as void ab initio.

5.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have deleted the addition of Rs.29,50,000 made by assessing officer u/s 69A of the Act towards unexplained cash deposits in bank account.

Page No. 3

I.T.A.No.270/VIZ/2025 Gairuboina Subbaiah 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have deleted the addition of Rs.10,01,035 made by the assessing officer towards short term capital gains. 7. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of 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.

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.

Page No. 4

I.T.A.No.270/VIZ/2025 Gairuboina Subbaiah 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 दुर्ााराि) (एस बालाकृष्णन) (VEERAVALLI DURGA RAO) (S. BALAKRISHNAN) न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:18.06.2025 Giridhar, Sr.PS आदेशकीप्रनतनलनपअग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to :- 1. निर्धाररती/ The Assessee : Gairuboina Subbaiah L/R of (Late) Gairuboina Sambasiva Rao D.No. 1-33, Bethapudi Post 4th Ward, Near Panchayati Office Managalagiri Mandal, Guntur – 522503 Andhra Pradesh 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : Income Tax Officer - Ward 2(1) Lakshmipuram Main Road Guntur – 522006 Andhra Pradesh 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4. नवभधगीयप्रनतनिनर्, आयकरअपीलीयअनर्करण, नवशधखधपटणम /DR,ITAT, Visakhapatnam 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax गधर्ाफ़धईल / Guard file 6. आदेशधिुसधर / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam

Page No. 5

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →