ARUSHI PATRO L/R OF (LATE) PREM PATRO,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), VISAKHAPATNAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 194/VIZ/2025Status: HeardITAT Visakhapatnam12 June 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the Ld. CIT(A) should have considered the additional evidence filed by the assessee and passed an order on merits. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) to admit the additional evidence and pass orders on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2012-13, which arose from an order passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144. There was a delay of 27 days in filing the appeal, which was condoned by the Tribunal. The assessee's representative argued that additional evidence was not admitted by the Ld. CIT(A) and prayed for the appeal to be remitted back.

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in not admitting additional evidence filed by the assessee, and whether the case should be remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for consideration of the additional evidence on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 69A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, Advocate
For Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Pronounced: 12.06.2025

आदेश /O R D E R

PER V. DURGA RAO, JM:

1.

The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072686177(1) dated 29.01.2025 for the A.Y.2012- 13 arising out of order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 30.12.2019.

Arushi Patro 2. We observe that there is a delay of 27 days in filing the appeal. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to circumstances beyond his control the assessee could not file the appeal in time. We find that there is sufficient cause to condone delay. Accordingly, the delay is condoned.

3.

Assessee has 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 upholding the validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act.

3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.1,25,00,000 made by the assessing officer u/s 69A of the Act by treating the amount received from the company Atika Consultancy Limited as unexplained.

4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in not admitting the additional evidence filed by the appellant.

5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.”.

At the outset, when the appeal was taken up for hearing, Ld. Authorised 4. Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that assessee filed additional evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) and the same are not admitted. Ld.AR prayed that these additional evidences may be admitted and prayed that this appeal may be remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) by providing one more opportunity to the assessee.

5.

On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld. DR”], however, objected for admission of additional evidences at this stage,

Page No. 2

6.

We have heard both the sides. In so far as admission of additional evidences is concerned, assessee is not able to file all the relevant documents before the Ld. AO and she has filled before Ld. CIT(A) for the first time. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the additional evidences filed by the assessee on the ground that he is not able to explain proper reasons for filing the additional evidences. The assessee already submitted before us that he was not able to file these details before the Ld. AO due to circumstances beyond his control and he has filed before First Appellate Authority only. In our opinion, Ld. CIT(A) has to consider the additional evidences and has to pass the orders on merits. In view of the above, we set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Ld. CIT(A) to admit the additional evidences to pass the orders on merits in accordance with law. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

7.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 12th June, 2025.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →